THE ENTREPRENEURIAL REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPER'S USE OF DELEGATION
by
Jeffrey H.
Jacobson
Bachelor of Science
Cornell University
1979
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SEPTEMBER,
@ Jeffrey H.
1987
Jacobson 1987
The Author hereby grants to M .I .T.
permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly copies
of this thesis document in whole or in part.
Signature of the author
( V'7f
Department
of Urban/
H. Jacobson
uaies and Planning
1987
July 31,
Certified by
Gloria Schuck
Sloan School of Management
Thesis Supervisor
Visiting Lecturer,
Accepted by
Michael Wheeler
Chairman
Interdepartmental Degree Program in Real Estate Development
00fch
rCH
AU6 31 y
MNSS , INST.
page
1
THE ENTREPRENEURIAL REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPER'S USE OF DELEGATION
by
JEFFREY H.
JACOBSON
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on July 31, 1987 in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
in Real Estate Development
ABSTRACT
The successful real estate development firm typically started with
The principal
the ideas and energy of one or two entrepreneurs.
managed every detail of early projects, from market research through
Staff was added by necessity,
construction management to marketing.
as the principal's ventures required more time than could be
personally contributed . The entrepreneur was soon devoting as much
time to managing the staff as to developing real estate .
Good professional managers delegate both responsibility and
authority to their staffs in order to free up their own time for
other activities, and also to develop and motivate their
However, the costs involved with delegation include
subordinates.
the consequences of subordinates' errors and time spent to train the
subordinate to do the task.
Delegation is emotional; personal
gratification may be foregone and egos bruised in developing others
to carry out one's own proficiency.
However, risks can be mitigated
through proper monitoring and control techniques.
This thesis analyzes the entrepreneurial real estate developer's
attitude towards and use of delegation within small firms.
Interviews and survey questionnaires were used to gather data from
Profiles of each firm are
four Boston-area development firms.
developed, and consistencies and contrasts within and among the
Delegation is found to be strongly correlated
firms are analyzed.
Prior
with planned and effective strategies for company growth.
work experience is also found to influence the use of delegation.
Where
Management hierarchies are necessary for proper delegation.
hierarchies don't exist, teamwork is used to achieve benefits
similar to those possible through delegation.
Thesis Supervisor:
Title:
Gloria Schuck
Visiting Lecturer,
Sloan School of Management
page 2
THE ENTREPRENEURIAL REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPER'S USE OF DELEGATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Abstract
.
.
Chapter 1 -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
.
Introduction......
Chapter 2 - Literature Survey
8
Research Methodology
Chapter 3 -
.
. . . . . . .
Chapter 41 - Results
Anthem Properties . . . . . .
The Cross Company.......
The Diamond Group . . . . . .
Beachmont Development Company
Chapter
5 - Analysis
Chapter 6 -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
1
. . . ..12
........
53
. . . . 72
. . . . 86
.101
.127
Conclusions and Recommendations
Bibliography
APPENDICES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 135
.
.
.
.
. 139
Appendix A - Survey Questionnaires
Al - "Specific Delegated and Non-Delegated Tasks"
. . . . .
A2 - "Are You and Effective Delegator?"..
A3 - "Possible Reasons for Minimal Delegation" . .
A1 - "Thought-Provoking Quotations"
. . . . . . .
page 3
.110
.112
.116
.118
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Real estate is often described as the last bastion of
entrepreneurship.
(Pyhrr and Cooper, 1982, p.
8) They state that
the
inherent
characteristics
of
real
estate
present
the
entrepreneur
with
numerous
opportunities
to
generate
extraordinary
profits.
If
the
entrepreneur
can
learn
to
carefully
analyze and assert some degree of control over
the
physical,
legal,
social,
and
financial
aspects
of real estate, then
a
strategy
that
will
increase
returns
relative
to risks
can
be
developed. (p.
7)
Pyhrr and Cooper identify three major roles within the active
real estate investment process: builder/Xdeveloper,
packager/syndicator, and property manager.
development firms, if
Although some
not most, involve themselves in each aspect of
the process, this paper focuses on the first
role.
The primary
objective of the builder/developer is "to realize a profit from the
sale of real property, where the profit is measured as the
difference between the sale price and the costs of producing the
product sold." (Pyhrr and Cooper, 1982, p.
13)
Due to the greater risks involved at the earliest stages of the
real estate cycle, development, as it
includes land acquisition,
zoning, or rezoning, has the greatest attraction for risk-seeking
individuals.
Typically, property development companies are thought
to be the greatest risk-takers.
(Byrne
and Cadman, 1985, p.
7)
In "The Heart of Entrepreneurship," Stevenson and Gumpert
(1985)
note that entrepreneurship is not an all-or-nothing trait
that some people or organizations possess and others do not.
page I
Rather, they suggest viewing entrepreneurship in the context of a
range of behavior.
Pressures for the extension of entrepreneurship,
Limitations on
they contend, tend to be external to the company.
entrepreneurial behavior tend to come from inside, the result of
high-level decisions and the exigencies of hierarchy.
(p.
86) They
also see the commitment of resources as a major differentiation of
entrepreneurial
behavior.
They note that
have
developers
estate
real
successful
few
space
even
or
contractors,
architects,
of these
Yet many
salespeople on the payroll.
and
ROls
extraordinary
up
rack
organizations
Entrepreneurs who are effective make
...
ROEs.
88)
the sparest allotment of resources. (p.
They further state: "Entrepreneurs learn to use other people's
resources well while keeping the option open on bringing them
in-house." (p.
91)
The principals or founders of the entrepreneurial development
firms are considered by their staffs to be "visionaries" for their
company's growth.
These individuals do all the work in their early
days of development, enjoying the detailed tasks and laboring long
hours.
Their roles change as the company grows, and difficulties
are encountered in the creation and maintenance of a staff to carry
out these same tasks.
The visionaries adopt with varying degrees of
comfort and ability the increasing role of manager and the
decreasing role of doer.
The firm may outgrow its entrepreneurial
orientation and take on bureaucratic tendencies.
When the staff
which has been delegated increased responsibility and authority,
their success may depend on the extent to which the principal is
aware of this transformation.
This thesis focuses on development firms that espouse the
page 5
technique of maximizing the use of contractors and consultants while
keeping a small in-house staff.
The four Boston-area development
firms that were chosen for analysis have small autonomous
development staffs, although the corporate entities might be larger
and comprise other, more labor-intensive divisions.
All four firms
use contractors and consultants to a great extent.
Staffing is
generally built as an extension of the principal's real estate
activities, primarily in the areas of site acquisition and project
management.
The central focus of this paper relates to the
principal's management of this small in-house staff to achieve the
company's goals.
It addresses the following questions:
- Are "textbook" delegation practices used in entrepreneurial
development firms?
-
What influence does the educational or professional background
of the principal have on his* use and style of delegation?
-
Does the existence of a well-defined business plan encourage
the use of delegation?
- Does the growth strategy of the company influence the use of
delegation?
- Can a firm's success be correlated with it's use of
delegation?
- Does the principal consider the professional development of
his subordinates in his use of delegation, and if so is this
reflected in his daily work practices?
-
What effect do the perceptions of the supervisor's use of
delegation by the staff have on their own performance?
Chapter 2 is a survey of the relevant business literature.
page 6
The
issue of what constitutes an entrepreneur and the general topic of
delegation are reviewed.
Chapter 3 outlines the field research
methodology for this paper, detailing the selection and interview
process for the firms chosen for investigation.
the results of the field research.
Chapter I presents
The four companies' use of
delegation are individually presented and analyzed.
Chapter 5
compares and contrasts the four companies, using the literature as a
framework for analysis.
Chapter 6 presents the conclusions of the
paper, answering the above questions.
Appendix A includes the four
survey questionnaires used to gather data from the subject
companies.
References to managers in dated literatures are almost always in the
male gender.
For that reason, and for the sake of editorial
efficiency, male pronouns will be used in this paper to represent
both male and female individuals.
page 7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
DECANONIZED
"en-tre-pre-neur - n
entreprendre
[F, fr
OF, fr.
to undertake) : one who organizes, manages, and assumes
the risks of a business or enterprise." Thus does Webster's New
Collegiate Dictionary (1979)
management.
define this recent trend in business
This trend is explained by Kaplan (1987)
in a Harvard
Business Review article:
in
is
all
know,
we
as
Entrepreneurship,
free
for
time
The 1980s have been a boom
vogue.
the
is
boom
the
of
hero
and the
enterprise,
the
capitalist,
intrepid
the
man,
self-made
a
everyone
makes
and
-person who gets rich
an
or
product
a
new
on
gambling
-rich
little
81)
innovative service. (p.
As the 1980s close, the inevitable swing of trendy management
theory builds momentum.
In the series of articles collectively
entitled "Entrepreneurship Reconsidered," both Reich (1987)
Kaplan (1987)
and
attempt to downplay the importance of the maverick
capitalist and elicit support for more focus on the organization.
They point out the confusion and ignorance of reality that
dramatized the role of the entrepreneur during the media blitz on
capitalism in this decade.
Kaplan comments that "[most unfortunate
is the notion that seems to have taken hold that entrepreneurship
and management are in opposition to each other." (p.
that it
81) He adds
"might be conceded all around that the CEO manages a company
that started out as the dream of some maverick entrepreneur." (p.
85) He quotes noted management specialist Peter Drucker:
page 8
"Entrepreneurship requires above all application of the basic
concepts, the basic techne, of management to new problems and new
opportunities." Kaplan continues that "the controversy over what
entrepreneurs are is far more than a debate about how to run a
business.
It
is about how to lead and who is to lead." (p.
89)
George Gilder, in his 1981 book The Spirit of Enterprise,
defines the American entrepreneurial heroes: "Fighters, fanatics,
men with a lust for contest, a gleam of creation, and a drive to
justify their break from the mother company." (Reich, 1987, p.
79)
Yet Reich claims that while Gilder is not exactly attacking
management, "the books throws off,
bias." (p.
87) Valentine (1973)
reflexively, an antimanagerial
adds:
In
the
days
when
enterprise
an
was
dominated
by
a
few
powerful
men,
their
reluctance
to
delegate
authority
in
depth
did
not
hamper
the
organization's
effectiveness.
But
in
today's
typical
company,
inadequacies
exist in the process of delegation that tend to
magnify
the
harmful
effects of
an
impersonal
climate and indifference to ambition often found
in the enterprise. (p.
')
Stevenson and Gumpert (1985)
note that "Managers describe
entrepreneurship with such terms as innovative, flexible, dynamic,
risk taking, creative, and growth oriented," while "the popular
press" often describes the term as "starting and operating new
ventures." (p.
85) For the purposes of defining entrepreneurship
for this thesis, a combination of the two ideas are used.
As
explained in Chapter 1, real estate development attracts risk
takers.
Also, developers generally contract out the specialties of
the business and maintain no in-house staff for tasks such as legal,
design, engineering, and construction services.
page 9
Thus, meeting these
two criteria qualifies the firm as entrepreneurial, unless a
predominance of other non-entrepreneurial factors exists within the
firm.
These might include the inability to set the firm's own
course, or employing a strategy to joint venture or otherwise sell
off the riskier aspects of development.
An orientation towards
growth is the next important criterion for inclusion.
SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH
Development firms may lose their entrepreneurial orientation as
they grow.
Accumulated wealth may discourage the principals from
risking capital on development projects, and may decrease risk
through joint ventures and changes in business strategy and
structure.
The organization becomes more bureaucratic through the
expansion of the development staff.
This may require establishing
levels of middle management, writing job descriptions to prevent
duplication of activity, and divisionalizing the company.
In "The
Five Stages of Small Business Growth," Churchill and Lewis (1983)
define the distinct phases through which a small enterprise
progresses:
I.
Existence
II.
Survival
lIl-D.
Success - Disengagement
lIl-G.
Success - Growth
IV.
Take-off
V. Resource Maturity
They explain that the management factors crucial to the company
at the Existence stage include the owner's ability to perform the
business tasks, the matching of business and personal goals, and
page 10
access to business and financial resources.
Management needs during
the Survival stage do not change significantly, but do so during the
Success stage.
At this stage a company either marshalls its
resources for growth or maintains its market position.
The owner's
ability to perform tasks becomes less critical, while his ability
and willingness to delegate becomes more critical.
Likewise, the
quality and diversity of the staff, strategic planning, and systems
and controls become more important.
the Take-off stage.
These trends continue through
Churchill and Lewis (1983)
continue:
owner's
the
built on
businesses are
Small
invent,
produce,
sell,
to
ability
the
talents:
delegate,
to
ability
owner's
The
whatever.
or
few
are
critical], since there
[not
is
however,
the
As
to....
delegate
to
employees
any
if
many
of
inability
[t]he
...
grows
company
begin
to
and
doing
of
go
let
to
founders
of
demise
the
explains
delegating
and
managing
many businesses in substage lll-G and Stage V.
a
requires
also
'delegating'
versus
'Doing'
old
onto
Holding
management.
flexible
company
a
ill serves
and old ways
strategies
even
can
and
stages
growth
the
that is entering
12)
be fatal. (p.
Rimler and Humphries (1980)
concur, noting that "the
imaginative qualities in the individual may become seeds of
self-destruction as the business develops and grows." (p.
DELEGATION
-
6)
BRIDGING THE GAP
Delegation is a management practice which fills the pages of
textbooks and articles.
All managers delegate to some extent, but
their style of delegation and the attention paid to it
considerably.
vary
Delegation entails two aspects: delegation of
responsibility and delegation of authority.
We shall see later that
the delegation of authority is the more difficult of the two.
However, Valentine (1973)
points out that the "most striking
page 11
can be multiplied by the act
characteristic of authority is that it
of delegating it
to others" (p.
Proper delegation of
11).
authority is credited with enabling managers to work efficiently,
productively, and towards a more successful future.
A few definitions are necessary at this point.
Although many
versions are found in the literature, Gardner and Davis, in The Art
of Delegating (1965),
define a set of related ideas which will be
useful later in analyzing the research data.
DELEGATION: Giving others the authority to act in your
behalf, accompanying it
with responsibility and
accountability for results.
RESPONSIBILITY: The job you and your organization are
given to do --
as one company phrases it,
'the duties of a
position.'
AUTHORITY: The right to make decisions, take action,
and give orders.
ACCOUNTABILITY: Your liability to your superior and your
obligation to accept responsibility and use authority.
(p.
2)
Business success can be and has been achieved despite poor
management practices by many companies, including real estate
development firms.
Can companies exist and even grow, then, without
utilizing textbook levels of delegation?
Is it
just a matter of
personal style for the top and middle managers?
The following
section surveys the literature on the issue of delegation.
A series of books and monographs addressing the issue have been
published by groups such as American Management Associations and The
page 12
In addition, journal articles have
Presidents Association.
discussed the topic in varying degrees of complexity.
I will first
discuss these books and articles, grouped in "tiers" by their level
of complexity.
I will then present examples of the practical use of
delegation by successful executives, both in and outside of real
estate.
The manaqement
literature contains scores of short articles
preaching the use and tenets of delegation.
Articles with titles
like "The Art of Delegation," (Sheppard, 1981); "Delegation: Key to
Management Success," (Kelly, 1986); and "How to Delegate
and Middlebrook, 1983) regularly appear in
Successfully," (Caruth
various trade and management journals.
These first-tier articles
stress the benefits of delegation for time-management and staff
"Everyone wins as a result of effective
development reasons.
delegation" (Huffmire, 1981, p.
from these articles.
all win.
32), is a typical conclusion drawn
The company, the manager, and the subordinate
No attempt is made in these articles to differentiate the
level of either the manager or the subordinate.
The assumption is
made that delegation can work effectively at any level.
A second-tier of articles appears in these same journals.
These begin to address the complexities and difficulties inherent in
trying to implement the first-tier articles.
"Why Supervisors Don't
Delegate...," (Hollingsworth and AI-Jafary, 1983); "Delegation: It's
Harder Than it
Looks," (Brill, 1979); and "Ineffective Delegation:
Symptom or Problem," (Savary, 1985) study examples of poor or
non-existent delegation.
Conclusions are generally no different
than those of the first
tier.
Hollingsworth and AI-Jafary quote
page 13
Andrew Carnegie: "When a man realizes he can call others in to help
him do a job better than he can do alone, he has taken a big step in
his life." (p.
12)
These articles begin to get into the psychology
of managers and subordinates, personal goals, and corporate culture.
Michael (1979)
succinctly summarizes basic pros and cons of
delegation:
If
we ask why some managers are reluctant
to
power
decision-making
to
delegate
subordinates, we can only assume that they must
the
perceive the costs involved in delegating -as being
consequences of subordinates' errors -improved
-an
the
benefits
higher
than
ftor
the
more
time
managerial
division of labor,
higher
operations,
to
control
superior
of
development
subordinates,
for
motivation
etc.
capabilities,
decision-making
subordinates'
11-2)
(pp.
Very little emphasis in this literature is on the entrepreneur.
Authors imply that managers at all levels should delegate authority,
although references that this is more difficult at the higher levels
of management are not uncommon.
The entrepreneur is very different
than the bureaucratic manager, however.
Rimler and Humphries (1980)
proffer that "delegation is seen as essential to large companies but
often appears optional to small business people." (p.
18) The
motivations, skills, and open-mindedness are especially varied.
Rimler and Humphries (1980)
also point out the emotional nature of
the entrepreneur's use of delegation:
is
delegation
person,
business
small
the
[TJo
it is
not merely a job description phenomenon -For the small business
a very personal process.
in
is,
job duties; he
manager is not delegating
a sense, delegating part of himself. (p.
18)
Literature constituting the third tier delves more deeply into
the subject of delegation.
It investigates the mindset of the
page 11
managers, either through personal experiences, or through case
studies or statistical survey and analysis.
Derek F. du Toit
(1985), who ran his own company for 12 years, related how his strong
enthusiasm about the business may not have been shared by others,
and so the personal motivations differed:
of my
aware
more
more and
As I became
at
task
the
toward
orientation
entrepreneurial
finer feelings of
hand rather than toward the
I
that
concluded
I
with,
I worked
people
the
would have to reduce the intensity that everyone
the job
getting
to
approach
but I saw in my
55)
completed. (p.
Timothy Firnstahl (1986),
a successful restaurant entrepreneur,
encountered four problems in trying to delegate.
these were "my" problems, not his company's.
He noted that
The first
"and most
obvious problem was watching someone mess up a task I could do
easily in half the time." The remaining three were: shifting from
the role of specialist to that of generalist, thereby "surrendering
the greatest pleasures of my professional life"; restraining his
competitiveness by teaching and letting others become the experts;
and learning the new, uncomfortable job and art of leadership.
(p.
1q)
In their classic 1958 article, "How to Choose a Leadership
Pattern," Tannenbaum and Schmidt describe a continuum of leadership
behavior.
The range of behavior runs from the manager making a
decision and announcing it,
to subordinate-centered leadership where
subordinates are given almost free reign to decide on a solution.
They contend that a manager decides on a strategy after considering
three forces:
1.
Forces in the manager;
page 15
2.
Forces in the subordinate; and
3.
Forces in the situation.
Their 1973 update to the article described a fourth set of forces,
those lying outside the organization.
Matthews, in his 1981 article "Run Your Business or Build an
Organization?," points out that delegation is not vital to the
success of all companies.
However, he discusses the importance of
delegation to growing firms.
that
tasks
those
of
one
is
Delegation
smaller,
of
managers
in
feelings
guilt
breeds
Managers know that, as their
growing companies.
complexity,
and
size
in
increase
businesses
At
delegating is a key to effective management.
companies
smaller
of
principals
time,
same
the
how
know
also
delegating
tried
have
who
So,
successfully.
out
carry
to
is
difficult it
task, many
the
with
ahead
press
than
rather
about the need to delegate
managers simply fret
Often their businesses
and do nothing about it.
life-styles.
comfortable
to provide
continue
difference
significant
is a
there
...
But
an
building
and
business
a
running
between
doesn't
who
owner
The business
organization.
prisoner
a
essentially
is
effectively
delegate
as soon as he or she steps away, the business
-The owner who entrusts authority to
crumbles.
the
expand
to
opportunities
creates
others
new ventures.
start
to
or
materially
business
(p.
31)
So delegation is seen as necessary for growing firms.
Valentine, in "Initiative and Managerial Power," (1973)
However,
notes a
major difficulty in utilizing it:
conflict
in
are
often
traits
human
[B]asic
one's
up
Giving
delegation.
act of
the
with
a
means
no
by
is
a subordinate
to
authority
to
contrived
having
act;
natural
completely
it,
to
on
hold
to
is
instinct
our
it,
secure
even though we may concede to the logic that the
benefits.
result in
will
of authority
delegation
(p.
3)
The concept of running a business or building an organization
page 16
is crucial for firms of all sizes.
It forces the principals to
focus their thoughts on what are the goals of the company, and to
what end they might be expanding their staffs.
Once the need to delegate has been established, articles on
styles of delegation provide further analysis.
Top of the Job," James Harrison, Jr.
styles of delegators.
(1961)
In "How to Stay on
analyzes the behavioral
He begins with the premise that all
executives delegate, but with varying degree of success.
He
professes that auditing the delegated job is critical to its
success, and that "...only by selecting a style of delegation that
[works]
can an executive keep his hand in sufficiently to protect
his accountability." (p.
103) He identifies nine methods whereby a
manager can follow the progress of his subordinate.
His survey of
successful executives revealed that the choice of method(s) is
situation-dependent.
Whereas lower-tiered articles discuss the time
savings of delegation, Harrison relates the style of delegation to
the time or resources that the manager chooses to allot to the
auditing task:
of
auditing,
a
method
of
final selection
The
of
a matter
compromise,
of
a matter
then, is
and
considerations
five
following
the
weighing
a solution:
resolving them to
What are the
- How important is this job?
results?
final
costs of imperfect
- How much time and money will it take to make
the optimum measurements and audit?
Must I make the
- Do I have this much time?
available?
time
- Can I interrupt this project to make an
How important is
For how long?
evaluation?
completion?
for
deadline
the
- How much faith do I have in the man carrying
out this project?
The successful executive, he continues, asks himself the
page 17
following:
between
I make
must
any,
if
compromise,
What
other
and
delegation
of
style
optimum
the
time,
of
limits
of
because
methods
effective
how
words,
other
in
Or,
or money?
effort,
perfectly?
this project
do
to
it
is
important
(p.
106)
Charles Perrow, in "The Bureaucratic Paradox: The Efficient
Organization Centralizes in Order to Decentralize," (1977),
addresses the three levels of control in an organization that
managers have over subordinates.
First-
order controls comprise
rules and regulations; second-order controls entail standardization
and specialization; and third-order controls are the shaping of
premises.
He notes that "the more bureaucratized an organization,
the more possibilities there are for decentralization of decision
making." (p.
9)
He feels that third-order controls are more crucial
at upper level tasks:
this
at
reQuired
is
special
[S)omething
most
the
of
one
perhaps
is
it
and
level,
-devices
control
all
of
powerful
large
the
of
values
the
into
indoctrination
particular
the
sustain
that
systems
a
on
relies
management
[T)op
organization....
life
employee's
host of scattered traces of the
speech
background,
social
-values
and
or
drink
to
ability
lifestyle, house,
patterns,
competence
technical
Sheer
graciously decline.
...
important
even
not
perhaps
enough,
not
is
stake.
at
are
premises
general
whenever these
13)
(p.
Only with this controls in effect, he claims, can and should
delegation occur.
When the manager is comfortable with the values
of the subordinate, he should trust him with decision-making
authority:
...
organizations
most
with
problem
The
aware
not
is
management
level
is that at every
extensive
for
possesses
is
potential
the
of
page 18
the
But
control.
delegate.
to
that
erodes
afraid
is
so it
control,
delegate
to
failure
very
1-1)
(p.
McConkey, in his book No-Nonsense Delegation, (1971)
provides
some of the framework for analysis of the field data that is
presented in Chapter
1.
Four steps of the delegation process,
loosely modeled after the teaching process described by Day (1983,
p.
919), will be analyzed for each task delegated.
These steps
entail:
1.
2.
3.
1.
and
Instruction
Monitoring;
shaping
Critique/Feedback;
the
task;
and
Results.
McConkey (1971)
relates that agreement is necessary on six
facets of the task being delegated:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
(responsibility);
job
the
of
Scope
Specific results to be achieved
(accountability);
schedule;
Time
Authority needed to carry out the
delegation;
Means used to measure performance (control
and feedback); and
Superior and subordinate each accept the
17)
duties. (p.
McConkey (1971)
also provides a framework for evaluating
results, which also should be used by the supervisor in monitoring
and for critique/feedback.
The following aspects should be included
in the evaluation.
1.
2.
3.
1.
5.
6.
7.
8.
aspects.
Quantitative
aspects.
Qualitative
considerations.
Deadline
Proper allocation of time given to
objectives.
objectives.
Type and difficulty of
obstacles.
in overcoming
Creativity
of
Additional objectives suggested
undertaken.
Efficient use of resources.
page 19
Use of good management practices in
objectives.
accomplishing
behavior.
and cooperative
Coordinative
202-203)
(pp.
9.
10.
These items will also be used in the analysis of the managers in
Chapter 5.
WHY CROSS THE DELEGATION BRIDGE?
As the small firm grows in staff and in number of projects, the
entrepreneur no longer contrasts his job situation with that of
working for someone else, but rather looks at his duties as a
manager versus a doer.
Figure 1 presents the characteristics of the
person who works for himself, and of the person who works for
others.
The fourth column in the figure presents reasons why the
entrepreneur may not want to delegate --
as he crosses the bridge
from his one-man show to managing in an "organizational" world.
One notices from Figure 1 that the process of delegation takes
the individual across the bridge from the entrepreneurial framework
to the organizational framework.
Except in the areas of risk and
venture, which are discussed below, the entrepreneur who has grown
his firm exhibits many of the characteristics of one working for
others.
If delegation does in fact "bureaucratize" the
entrepreneur, why then should the person feel comfortable acting in
this mode?
The difference may lie in the risk parameter.
The risk of
spoiling one's reputation, or losing ones capital or job, are not
lessened through delegation.
We first
define risk as the
variability of an outcome with a consequence.
The risk can only
increase, then, as the variability of outcomes isincreased as a
different, less experienced person assumes responsibility for the
page 20
Figure I
ENTREPRENEURIAL CHARACTERISTICS
(modified from Rimler and Humphries, 1980, p.
Works for oneself
Works for others
3)
Delegation -Crossing the bridje
Achievement
Depends on
one's own
ability
Part of "system" that
may be more important
than individual ability
Dependent on
others' ability
Risk
Reputation,
capital
Relatively small when
one conforms to the
system. Dismissal in
extreme cases
Reputation and
capital at even
greater risk as
control decreases
Attention
to detail
Ultimate
responsibility
[necessary)
Pass responsiControlled, to some
extent, by those above bility to others
in the hierarchy
Commitment
Total, always
on call
Limited
Time manage- Left to one's
own devices
ment
(9:00 am - 5:00 pm)
Controlled by company
policy
Free up time to
develop company
policy
Willing to allow
control by others
Should not control
subordinates'
activities, only
their goals
Control
Wants to
control one's
own activities
Venture
Looks for fresh Often depends on
tradition; not usually
ideas and new
willing to experiment
ways of doing
things
outcome.
Desire to
lessen commitment
Free up time to
think up new
ventures
The consequence generally remains the same: some degree of
failure.
The decision for an entrepreneur to delegate is thus made in
the face of two unappealing prospects.
The first
is the
"bureaucratization", the fear of building a staff large enough to
require management, reporting and feedback systems, and
impersonalization of the work environment.
page 21
The second is the fear
of failure.
The challenge for the small developer is to develop a
management
style which avoids both traps and thus excites the
entrepreneur and at the same time keeps him out of bankruptcy court.
The true entrepreneur may not be comfortable managing the
organization he has set up.
It is indeed difficult to maintain
entrepreneurship in a larger company, as Churchill and Lewis (1983)
note:
the
expand
must
corporation
The
the
eliminate
enough to
fast
force
management
and
produce
can
growth
that
inefficiencies
professionalize the company by use of such tools
by
management
planning,
strategic
budgets,
as
and do
objectives, and standard cost systems -entrepreneurial
its
stifling
without
this
qualities.
(p.
10)
Perhaps the framework for entrepreneurship is wrong.
Returning
to Reich, perhaps the spirit is already captured in the company:
both
is
organization
entrepreneurial
The
that
so
decentralized,
and
experience-based
every advance builds on every previous advance,
and everyone in the company has the opportunity
80)
and capacity to participate. (p.
Two statistical studies which investigated the process of
delegation.
The authors of both studies point out how little
empirical research has been done on the subject.
(1980)
Cosier and Aplin
studied the effect of delegated choice on performance.
examined two hypotheses:
H,
over
delegated choice
are
who
Individuals
higher
make
will
schedule
work
their
accuracy)
(greater
decisions
quality
than those who are assigned their work
schedules.
H2
Individuals who are delegated choice over
decisions
quality
higher
make
will
goals
are
than those who
accuracy)
(greater
583)
assigned goals. (p.
page 22
They
Their research methodology entailed using voluntary subjects in
a modeled business environment.
Subjects could choose or be
assigned goal choices ranging from "not very challenging" to "very
challenging".
Scheduling choices could also be made by subjects.
control group of subjects was assigned goals and schedules.
A
It was
found initially, "subjects who were given a choice over the type of
goal predicted significantly better than subjects who were assigned
a goal." They found, however, that "over time, information from the
task itself became more important than the delegated choice over
goals." (p.
592) The choice of scheduling tasks had no correlation
with performance.
The fabricated business environment in this study
and the methods used to measure performance were very crude.
The
following study better measures delegation practices in the office.
In "Predictors and Consequences of Delegation," Leana (1986)
developed and statistically tested seven hypotheses.
Five made
predictions about the level of authority that might be delegated to
subordinates, while two concerned the consequences of delegating
tasks.
She surveyed 19 branch offices of a national insurance
company through questionnaires and archival performance records.
Degree of delegation was measured by the settlement authority levels
assigned to all claims adjusters by their supervisors.
"These
settlement authorities represented the dollar amounts for which they
could award damages on claims without consulting their supervisors
and obtaining approval." (pp.
762-3) Subordinates' performance was
measured by their settlement ratios and their average cost of
claims.
Leana found that supervisors' characteristics contributed
page 23
little to explaining variance in levels of delegation.
She did
find, however, that supervisor's perceptions of subordinates and two
situational characteristics, decision importance and supervisors'
workload, were significant predictors.
Together, though, the five
hypotheses explained only 15 percent of the variance in the levels
of delegation.
(p.
766)
Leana was able to explain 51 percent of the variance in job
performance.
Previous job performance was strongly correlated, as
was the congruence of the subordinate's goals with his supervisor's.
Her conclusions bring new insights into the study of delegation.
Two areas of her focus are included in Chapters 5 and 6 of this
thesis.
The first
is that situational constraints, rather than the
predisposition of the supervisor including his need for dominance
and role perception, influence the supervisor's delegation traits.
The second area was in the organizational distinction between
delegated authority and participative decision making.
While past
research has shown a positive relationship between subordinates'
participation in decision making and their satisfaction, while no
Leana's research has
effect on performance has been clearly shown.
shown the opposite: delegation was a significant predictor of
subordinate's job performance, while no relationship was shown to
exist between delegation and job satisfaction.
(p.
770)
THE BUSINESS LEADER AS DELEGATOR
This section contains quotations from and about successful
business leaders.
After studying chief executive officers, Levinson
and Rosenthal defined leadership as follows:
(2)
charge;
take
to
able
is
leader: (1)
The
ego
powerful
a
and
has a strong self-image
page 21
ideal:
(3)
interacts
with
customers,
employees,
and
other
constituencies
supportively;
(1)
a
is
(5)
risks;
to
take
permission
provides
p.
1986,
(Horton,
a doer.
as well as
thinker
5)
Bennis and Nanus describe the four areas of competency that
leaders share:
(each
attention
of
management
[T]he
having a vision for the future); the management
of meaning (each presenting his of her visions
(by
with great clarity); the management of trust
tireless
and
reliability
their
demonstrating
self
of
management
the
and
persistence);
inspiring
and
positively
themselves
(viewing
p.
1986,
(Horton,
in others).
feelings
positive
5)
Although these traits do not include delegation specifically,
the presentation of the vision implies execution by others.
Let's
look at the attitudes that these business leaders have towards
delegation.
In his book, "What Works for Me", Horton profiles
sixteen chief executive officers of corporations and institutions.
Their insights into motivating and developing people provide clues
as to how they got to the top of their organizations.
Although not
all sixteen concur on delegation techniques, the following excerpts
provide a baseline against which to contrast the styles of the
development leaders surveyed in Chapter
q of this thesis.
James Burke, CEO of Johnson & Johnson:
hope]
[I
people,
top management
[With]
right
the
make
will
they
that
make
to
have
not
will
I
decision...and...that
Your
their choice.
that decision...It has to be
they're
people [need to) believe and know that
don't
you
If
operations.
own
their
running
then when
environment,
this kind of
encourage
'Well,
say,
people will
tough, your
get
do
you
so I'll do
that's the way they want me to do it,
know they have the
they
But if
it
that way.'
right to fight back, you're much less apt to get
into
a
position
of
dominating
their
decision,
page 25
you do become too
If
and that's the real key.
best
your
twice,
or
once
than
more
dominant,
people
will go
somewhere
else."
(Horton,
1986,
32)
p.
Marisa Bellisario, CEO of Italtel:
[O)ne should be careful not to reduce the
I believe
it.
have
who
those
responsibility of
be
should
...
manager
general
my
that
control
and
direction
giving
for
responsible
over its own operations, and therefore I do not
made....
have
they
which
decision
any
change
51)
p.
1986,
(Horton,
than
important
more
are
[P]eople
very
are
people
smart
and
organization,
frustrating
most
the
really
is
It
important.
stupid
and
with boring
deal
to
to have
thing
As long as you can operate with smart
people.
can
you
...
people
efficient
and with
people
52)
(p.
any problem....
almost
deal with
the
decentralize
to
tried
have
I
but
I
delegate,
that
I believe
organization.
not
do
I
that
believe
to
tend
people
many
some
for in
delegate as much as I think I do,
I try
ways I stay very close to many problems.
never to take decisions with people who do not
people feel
report directly to me, but sometimes
51)
I am giving them direction. (p.
Peter Scotese, Chairman of Springs Industries:
to
used
I
delegation.
in
also
I believe
decided
but
meetings
manager
division
attend
I would
that they were affecting me too much.
I would
this meeting,
running
I were
'If
think,
I just stopped
So
way.'
a different
in
do
it
going, because I did not want to tempt myself to
believe
I
division president.
the
second-guess
their
letting people have lots of freedom in
in
But at some point I have a tendency
operations.
sometimes
and
hard
pretty
down
come
to
of
That goes back to my old trait
irrevocably.
119)
directness. (Horton, 1986, p.
Theodore Hesburgh, President, University of Notre Dame:
is
this:
president
vice
I tell each
What
'I want you to find the very best people you can
and
to choose
to have
going
find, but you're
appoint them, since you are going to work with
the
people
you select.
If
they're
successful,
you're going to get the credit for the success
wrong
the
pick
you
operation, and if
of that
page 26
to
going
unsuccessful, you're
who are
people,
take
to
going
not
I'm
it.
for
blame
the
take
credit from you, and I'm not going to take the
161)
p.
1986,
(Horton,
you....
for
blame
to delegate everything that should be
I try
organization.
the
through
down
delegated, right
without
today
place
this
leave
could
I
swear
I
notice and be gone for two weeks, and the place
return.
my
on
top
a
like
running
be
would
162)
Everybody is doing his own job. (p.
These business leaders, then, understand the value of hiring
The ability to delegate flows from their confidence in
good people.
their staffs.
Rimler and Humphries (1980), concur:
Successful
solicit
decision
business
small
input
from
employees,
managers
and
they
subordinates
of
judgment
the
on
rely
also
A
practical.
is
it
whenever
and
wherever
faith
willingness to rely on others springs from
business
small
A
judgement.
own
one's
in
own
her
or
his
in
who believes
entrepreneur
excellent
an
in
is
ability
decision-making
of
judgment
legitimate
on the
rely
position to
8)
others. (p.
As will be seen in Chapter '1, developers often compare
themselves to high-tech firms.
Corporation.
In his speech "Entrepreneurship does not Preclude
president Ken Olsen discussed delegation of
Integrity," (1987)
responsibility.
Many mentioned Digital Equipment
"
When people have complete responsibility for
their part they do very well.
[T]he effectiveness of people in
charge feeling responsible, feeling creative, is truly impressive.
(p.
7) He noted that "[few entrepreneurs survive very long, either
because of success or because of failure.... people start companies
and success almost completely destroys entrepreneurial spirit." (p.
7) He suggested that "one of the most satisfying things is to pass
on to others, to help others to be creative to take responsibility,
to be challenged in their jobs ..." (p.
7)
page 27
Donald Trump, the reigning real estate magnate, presents a
different persona.
"'He is a very hands-on manager,' said his
senior vice president.
'His attitude is that when you're too busy
to handle the details, it's time to close the store."' (Norman,
1987, p.
95) He was described as being "an entrepreneur and a
dealmaker caught in a quagmire.
too much of his time.
He gets into [details) that take
He'll grow out of it.
that quantum leap while he's hot." (p.
But he's got to make
91) His associates say that
"his detail-oriented management style will limit his ability to
grow." (p.
takes it
91) "His name is on the [Trump Parc] building, and he
personally." (p.
99) We shall see in the following
chapters whether this style is more typical of real estate
developers than of corporate business leaders.
page 28
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The intent of the field research for this thesis was to
document and analyze the use of delegation in a small number of
similar entrepreneurial development companies.
was created for testing.
No one hypothesis
Rather, organizational research with no
predetermined answers was employed.
Daft (1983)
noted that
"landmark studies" in behavioral science "often approached the
problem as an open-ended question to be answered rather than as an
hypothesis to be tested." (p.
510)
In developing a research strategy, two different research
techniques were considered and rejected.
An objective data
collection survey of a statistically significant sample of firms was
rejected for two reasons.
The availability during the summer months
for personal interviews at some twenty firms seemed unlikely, and
mail-in or telephone interviews would not likely be answered.
The
feeling of the company's culture would not be captured in this way.
On the other extreme, the concept of researching only one or two
companies in depth was also rejected.
This would require many hours
of on-site interviewing and observation; developers would not make
this time available.
In addition, a fine-screen pre-selection
process to identify an ideal, "representative" firm had not been
established.
The technique of researching a small number of firms was thus
chosen.
Daft (1983)
notes that "contact either in the form of
visits and observations or perhaps through descriptive case analysis
page 29
provides the intellectual raw material for useful theory." (p.
511)
This thesis describes the use of "textbook" delegation and compares
and contrasts it
to the practices in entrepreneurial development
firms.
A list of 25 real estate development firms in the Boston area
was developed for potential field research.
The list included 15
past or current members of MIT's Center for Real Estate Development,
and 10 non-affiliated firms.
The geographical restriction was
chosen to make data collection easier, and also to preclude
differences in management styles due to local or regional influence.
Firms where contacts existed and those known to be receptive to
educational research were contacted first.
If
they were unavailable
or refused, other firms on the list were contacted.
In all, fifteen
firms were contacted in order to secure interviews with four.
Firms were required to either be independent businesses or be
branch offices of larger firms with enough local autonomy and
entrepreneurial direction to behave as an independent business.
Firms were further screened to include only those whose primary
business was development, although they also may be active in
property management, brokerage, or syndication.
Firms involved in
these other areas were required to have a formalized Development
Division or similar group.
Managers who had jurisdiction over more
than one group were asked to focus on their development activities
and staff.
Preliminary attempts to restrict the interviews to nearly
identical firms failed due to lack of similarity among firms.
Attempts to match the size of firms willing to participate, the
page 30
dollar volume of their work, and their product mix proved
impossible.
Firms were screened to identify those which had a
three-level hierarchy, comprising:
1.
A strong, "visionary" leader, preferably the firm's
founder and/or long-time partner;
2.
A development director or project manager reporting
directly to the above; and
3.
A junior or assistant project manager, research
assistant, or analyst who reports directly to the middle
manager.
The primary emphasis in this thesis is on the first
these levels.
two of
As discussed later in this section, the use of this
hierarchy in the surveyed firms did not develop as originally
hypothesized.
Data on the assistant project manager level is
presented only for companies where a true hierarchy exists and
delegation to that level was demonstrated.
Once the firms were identified, the format of the
organizational research was decided.
The research would be
qualitative; subjects would be interviewed about the use of
delegation within the firm.
Delegation profiles would be developed,
similar to the "action profiles" developed by Ramsden (1973).
While
she constructed these profiles through qualitative analysis, the
profiles developed in this thesis used quantitative inputs.
Questions which could be scored to determine the level of delegation
were assembled into three questionnaires.
These questionnaires were assembled from the many checklists
contained in the literature.
Each checklist was intended to help
page 31
the manager determine whether or not he was an effective delegator;
all questions had a yes or no answer which indicated good or bad
delegation tendencies.
The surveys contained in Appendices A2 and
A3 were assembled from the questions thought most provoking and most
relevant to the current research.
These would be asked of both the
supervisor and one or two subordinates in each firm.
Two results
were desired for analysis: The total number of responses indicating
good delegation practices, and agreement between the supervisor and
the subordinate that good delegation is occurring.
The hypothesis
was developed that this agreement between supervisor and subordinate
may be more critical to a firm's success than the absolute level of
textbook, "good" delegation practices.
Separate interviews with each of the twelve participants were
conducted.
firm.
Interviews took place at the home or local office of the
One interview was conducted at a restaurant.
Most
participants were aware of the thesis topic beforehand, although an
absence or the selection of a more suitable person for interviewing
occasionally brought an uninformed individual into the process.
All
participants were told that the topic of the thesis was the use of
delegation in entrepreneurial real estate development firms.
Interviews lasted from one-half hour to one-and-one-half hours,
and were tape recorded with the subject's permission.
All subjects
consented.
All questions were read to the subject, and a response
requested.
Although the interviewer's intonation or other
unavoidable personal influences may have biased responses, it was
thought that better cooperation would be achieved through structured
conversation than by leaving the individual to fill out the
page 32
questionnaires themselves.
First, questions from "Specific Delegated and Non-Delegated
Tasks" (Appendix Al) were read one at a time.
Managers were asked
to relate a specific instance of delegation to the subordinate in
question.
The task was requested to be something which would not
automatically fall within the subordinate's job description, but
rather something the manager thought about and made a conscious
decision to delegate.
Occasionally, suggested tasks were rejected
because they did not meet certain criteria, and subjects were
prompted for another task.
These rejection criteria included: the
task was not development related, not substantially completed, or
too trivial for analysis.
Only key ideas were written down at the
time in order to effect smoother conversation.
Second, the
questions from "Are You an Effective Delegator" (Appendix A2) were
read to the subject, and yes-or-no answers requested.
Answers were
checked yes, no, or neither when the subject was undecided, or when
elaborations made the answer too subjective for definitive
recording.
Third, the items from "Possible Reasons for Minimum
Delegation" (Appendix A3) were read, and answers on a 1-to-5 scale
were requested.
Subjects were prompted with choices where
definitive answers were not immediately provided.
Finally, three quotes from the literature (Appendix Al) were
read to the subjects, and they were asked to comment or react to the
quotes, either in the context of their firm or generally.
Again,
key notes were recorded by the interviewer; other comments were tape
recorded and later transcribed.
The free flow of ideas was
encouraged at this point in the interview; the more objectives
page 33
questions had been answered without previous consideration of
delegation activities which might influence a subject's response.
Subordinates underwent interviewing similar to the managers,
but generally to lesser depth.
Occasionally, the subordinate was
interviewed before the manager, and therefore supplied the task to
be discussed under "Specific Delegated and Non-Delegated Tasks.
Questions from "Are You an Effective Delegator?" were posed and
asked to be answered in reference to his supervisor.
"Possible
Reasons for Minimal Delegation" questions were similarly framed.
Questions from Appendix A-
were asked only of subordinates thought
to understand management's philosophy of business.
The four
individual survey results are presented in the Chapter
'.
Chapter 5
summarizes the results and compares and contrasts the four firms.
In "Learning the Craft of Organizational Research," Daft (1983)
dispels the myth that successful research should come out as
predicted.
True to his notion, many surprises were encountered in
this research.
The original idea to investigate three levels of
hierarchy within firms proved difficult.
Even firms that asserted
that this structure existed were not always conducive to such
analysis.
The idea that "A delegates to B, and B delegates to C",
seldom materialized.
Quantitative data concerning the second level
of delegation ("B delegates to C") could not be consistently
obtained.
Instead, attitudes about this level of delegation were
discerned through interview responses.
The focus shifted to the
corporate culture which pervaded the firm.
Thus, Chapter
1 presents
this information only where the second level of delegation existed,
and is presented qualitatively.
page 31
Each firm is described in the next chapter as follows.
a brief summary of the firm is presented.
First,
To ensure confidentiality
of the subject firms, fictitious names are used for both the firm
and the individuals.
All individuals are presented as males to
further obfuscate identities.
Company histories may be modified
somewhat, but care was taken to ensure that facts relevant to the
thesis, such as an individual's work history or length of time with
the organization, are accurate.
Second, a section on the company culture is presented to
familiarize the reader with the spirit observed and discussed during
the interviews.
Third, the company's goals, as disclosed during the
interviews by all subjects, are described.
In both of these
sections, conflicting testimony is presented where it
occurred.
This is due to the personal nature of the responses; no one
individual could be expected to accurately represent the firm.
Fourth, the specific task discussed in response to the
questionnaire of Appendix Al is presented.
The task is broken down
into the four steps of the delegation process derived from Day
(1983; see Chapter 2).
Fifth, more general comments about
delegation are presented.
The data are grouped under the headings
abbreviated from the four thought-provoking questions that were read
to the subjects (Appendix Al).
The comments were not necessarily in
response to the question in the heading, but may have surfaced at
any time during the interviews.
Finally, a delegation profile for the company is shown.
This
table is a tally of responses to the questionnaire in Appendix A2.
Fifty-two questions were asked of the supervisor about his feelings
page 35
and his work practices.
The same questions were asked of one or two
of his subordinates about their perception of the supervisor's
feelings and work practices.
In two cases, the supervisor profiled
was the top man in the firm, and in two cases, he was the
second-in-command.
For each of the 52 questions posed, each party
responded either true or false, or their response could not be
categorized, or the question was inapplicable.
were distributed into four categories.
Applicable responses
(In the two cases where two
subordinates from the same company were queried, the responses were
similar enough to be averaged into one "subordinate's" response.)
The responses to each question were either in agreement, or in
disagreement.
For example, the supervisor and subordinate might
have both responded "yes" to the question, "Are needed decisions
postponed while [the supervisor] is away?".
This indicates
agreement that the supervisor is a "bad" delegator.
Two "no"
responses indicate agreement that he is a "good" delegator.
However, if
the supervisor answered "no" while the subordinate
answered "yes", this indicates disagreement, where the supervisor
felt he was a good delegator and the subordinate thought otherwise.
Each of the applicable responses were thus distributed among the
four profile categories.
The following example shows how a profile is constructed and
analyzed.
Larry is Mike's supervisor.
Each was asked the 52
questions about Larry's delegation attitudes and practices.
Larry
answered 25 true and 25 false, and twice could not decide.
Each of
these questions had a predetermined answer which indicates whether
the supervisor is a good delegator or a bad delegator.
page 36
For example,
Larry's true-and-false answers may have translated to 35 "good
delegation" responses and 15 "bad delegation" responses.
Next, Mike was asked to respond to the same questions about
He also answered 25 true, 25 false,
Larry's delegation tendencies.
and twice could not decide.
differently than Larry.
Of course, many questions were answered
After comparing Mike's answers to the
predetermined responses, Mike judged Larry a good delegator 28 times
and judged him a bad delegator 22 times.
Each of the 52 questions was now looked at separately.
Starting with question #1, the following analysis was made: Did both
Larry and Mike give the same answer to the question?
response indicate that Larry was a good delegator?
one point in the upper left box of the profile -delegator.
If so, did the
If yes, score
"agreement/ good
The profile, after only one question, would look like
this:
Disagreed and
the supervisor
felt he was a:
Agreed
Total
Supervisor is a:
Good delegator
1
0
1
Bad delegator
O
O
O
Total
1
0
1
If they agreed and gave the same answer, but the joint response
was that Larry was a bad delegator, score one in the lower left box
--
"agreement/bad delegator"
page 37
Disagreed and
the supervisor
felt he was a:
Agreed
Total
Supervisor is a:
Good delegator
o
Bad delegator
1
O
1
Total
1
0
1
0
Now, suppose that Larry and Mike had disagreed.
"false" response indicated that he was a good delegator.
Larry's
Mike,
however, responded "true", indicating that Larry was a poor
delegator.
Score it
"Disagreed, and the supervisor felt he was a
good delegator":
Disagreed and
the supervisor
felt he was a:
Agreed
Supervisor is a:
Good delegator
o
1
Total
1
Bad delegator
O1
o
Total
Finally, if
0
1
Larry had responded "true" and Mike "false", the
final case occurs.
Score this one, "Disagreed, and the supervisor
felt he was a bad delegator":
Disagreed and
the supervisor
felt he was a:
Agreed
Total
Supervisor is a:
Good delegator
o
Bad delegator
0
1
1
O
1
1
Total
0
Only 18 questions have valid responses, because Larry and Mike
each failed to respond to two questions.
The remaining 17 questions
are scored similar to question #1, and the profile is constructed,
page 38
with the sum of the four cells equalling 18.
The final profile
might look like this:
Agreed
Supervisor is a:
Good delegator
Disagreed and
the supervisor
felt he was a:
Total
26
9
35
Bad delegator
7
6
13
Total
33
5
118
The analysis of the actual profiles for the four firms focuses
on the relationship of the scores in each cell.
vertical relationships are analyzed.
corner, "Agreement /good
A high score in the upper left
delegation" is thought to be desirable.
26 score above represents 26/18, or 51Y
fairly high score.
Both horizontal and
The
of the total responses --
a
Likewise, disagreements are expected, but are
best thought to be equally distributed, rather that have a
supervisor who feels that he is a much better delegator than his
subordinate thinks.
The 9-to-6 split for Larry and Mike above is
moderately distributed -delegator than Mike does.
Larry thinks that he is a slightly better
Each company's analysis includes a
discussion as to whether the profile accurately reflects the data
gathered through qualitative interview questions.
Responses to specific questions proved more discerning that was
expected.
Many questions that were thought to be easily answered,
perhaps transparent and would elicit "programmed" responses, induced
great pensivity and heartfelt responses.
Subjects frequently
commented that "that's a real good question," or "I've thought a lot
about that." Conversely, one subject was thought to have responded
instinctively with the "correct" responses, without much regard to
page 39
his current situation.
No correction can be made for this.
In retrospect, the key areas of focus changed somewhat during
the interview process.
A shift of emphasis during the interview
process from "how" one delegates to "why" one delegates put more
"meat" into the interviews.
concept of a hierarchy.
The idea of "how" stemmed from the
The "why" concept developed as managers
discussed their business goals, and trends among managers came into
clearer focus.
Thus, as the research process progressed, less
attention was given to third-level subordinates and more attention
was placed on company business plans.
Daft (1983),
however, would
approve:
facts,
incomplete
with
start
should
One
the
on
experiments
plan
and
ambiguity,
with
rather
hunch,
bare
even
probability,
of
basis
(p.
surprise.
for
look
Then
certainty.
than
510)
page 10
CHAPTER
I
RESULTS
This section contains the results of the interviews with the
four subject firms.
Each firm is presented separately
format described in Chapter
3.
in the
The four firms presented are:
Anthem Properties
The Cross Company
The Diamond Group
Beachmont Development Company
page
11
Anthem Properties
Anthem Properties is a development firm with a strong marketing
orientation, and has been in business over forty years.
The firm
has developed a number of commercial properties in recent years, and
has extensive involvement in the leasing of their own as well as
other properties.
Curt,
The firm is headed by Herb, the chairman.
the president of the firm, worked with the chairman but did not
directly report to him.
Curt started with Anthem ten years earlier
as a one-man marketing and leasing operation.
Steve was the vice
president of marketing, and was responsible primarily to Curt but on
some tasks reported to Herb.
He had been with Anthem for a year.
Stan was a leasing agent for the firm.
conducted with Herb, Curt, and Steve.
Separate interviews were
Stan was not interviewed, but
is mentioned by Curt.
Company Culture
Curt had difficulty when asked to describe the structure of the
company.
He saw it
as "a matrix", although this structure was not
formalized by any divisions or titles.
There is not much hierarchy
at Anthem, and reportability does not follow established lines.
Curt added that "I don't really think there is a structure.
would tell you there's a structure, and he's in charge....
Herb
If there
is a structure, I'd have trouble drawing it."
Herb spoke extensively about the high level of teamwork within
the firm.
He seemed content working to control the team, and got
involved in details "only when it's necessary for me to do them.
If
somebody else can do something, I'm perfectly happy to have them do
it." He had successfully divested himself of the responsibilities
page 12
which he previously enjoyed doing: "I used to read the (project]
spec books very carefully, but now I don't read them so carefully.
He could do this, he explained, because "other people probably do it
better."
The chairman may soon be passing the reins of the firm to the
president.
Herb said, "I think Curt would like to be where I am,
and he probably should.
Except that he doesn't want to do the
details and some of the work that makes these things happen.
He's a
much more broad-brush person." Curt did not address the succession
of the company.
Company Goals
Herb spoke about his personal goals in relation to the size of
the company.
I think
I'm
not
excited
about
expanding.
The more people you put on your staff, the more
people you have report to you, and the more work
you have to do.
I don't know that I am really
that eager to have a higher work load.
Both my
family and my wife feel that I don't take enough
leisure time as it is.
Specific Delegated Task
Curt's suggestion for a specific task that he delegated to
Steve was the task of putting together "an event", or a party for
area brokers, to publicize the firms new office building.
Curt felt
that with all the broker's parties given by the competition, he
wanted to do something different, something that might be remembered
longer than the typical event.
Yes.
Is it
"Is it
something I can do myself?
something I have time to do?
No, which is why you have
people to delegate to."
Instruction and Shaping the Task - Curt commented that the task
page 13
was "a little bit outside of what Steve has typically been doing."
Curt said that he gave Steve the "freedom" and flexibility" to hire
outside consultants to assist in the event.
Curt remembered that
"we reached a consensus" in putting the idea for the theme and the
party details together.
It was not a democratic process, however,
as Curt admitted that "Steve had an idea, and then I inflicted my
idea on him." Steve reiterated that he had come up with the idea but
that he generally "bounces ideas off" of Curt.
process: "We
Curt summed up
talk about things, and then I decide, and he agrees
with me, or he argues with me, or I argue with him." All this
arguing implies that Curt really just delegated to Steve the
implementation of details.
The sharing of ideas did not encourage
Steve to develop his own ideas and recommend them or implement them
without approval.
Monitoring - Curt spoke of Steve as having come from "a big
company ...
there's a conflict of cultures" between the way tasks
are delegated.
Curt described his monitoring of the delegated task
as oral and informal: he would frequently ask Steve, "How are we
coming along?" Overall budget guidelines were established for the
event.
He felt that financial constraints served a self-auditing
function.
However, Steve recalled that there was no monitoring,
only final signoffs at certain stages.
Steve kept the signoffs on
file as documentation in case memories ran short.
Although Curt
reads all the copy, Steve felt that "he pretty much lets me run with
it." Steve also spoke of keeping some of the event material that he
had prepared away from Curt to avoid his getting involved: "I think
he should become less involved in the minutia."
page +1
Feedback - Feedback on the task was not specifically discussed.
The sign-offs of the draft event material served as approval of
Steve's work and implicit positive feedback.
Results - The event had not yet been held at the time of the
interview.
Curt described what his concerns were with the
delegation on the task.
delegating
had about
[I
concerns
The two
be
the task] are that it look right and that it
the
that's
think
I
fashion.
timely
a
in
done
I'm
if
that
delegates,
who
anybody
of
fear
as
done
be
to
going
it
is
something,
delegating
myself?
it
did
I
if
as
quickly,
as
well, and
He noted that, so far, Steve's performance of the task was up
to his own standards.
Curt rated Steve very competent: "If he
wasn't a 10 out of 10, he wouldn't be here." He was responsible for
Steve's hiring, and Curt described the delegation of this task as
typical of his style.
Supervisor's Adoption of the Managerial
Role
The following sections present information about the manager
and his attitude towards and comfort with his managerial
responsibilities.
The headings in this section are abbreviated
forms of the quotations read to the subjects.
The subjects'
comments may not have been in direct response to the quotation under
which it
is presented, but rather gathered during the course of the
interviews.
"The New, Uncomfortable Job and Art of Leadership" -
Curt has
been involved in marketing for 17 years, only having supervisory
authority the last five or six years.
He described his transition
from being a one-man operation to managing a small staff.
As the
company grew, "and as there was more marketing to do, there was need
page 15
for more brokers.
I do marketing, so I was doing the delegation."
He was thus thrust into the role, and he freely admitted his
difficulty with the duties.
generally
think
a good
I'm
think
don't
always have the nagging
better and do
[a task)
I
cheaper,
though
money
I
hard...
been
it's
I
guess
I
delegator.
do
feeling that I could
Maybe even
quicker.
it
is
not
one
of
my
big
concerns.
Curt then described the role of manager as he viewed it.
"Being a sales manager is a lot like being a babysitter, doing a lot
of handholding." He felt that subordinate's requests of him drew out
his experience.
They would ask 'I'm showing such-and-such a
property, what should I do next,' or 'I'm
having this kind of
problem with this deal, what should I do?' Curt described these as
"situational kinds of problems that you have to solve." He also
likened the role to that of a cheerleader, and spoke openly about
his view of leadership:
of
issue
whole
the
becomes
it
I guess
whether you're a leader or a manager, or whether
I guess
you're a quarterback or a cheerleader.
marketing
the
in
interested
more
I'm
organization and being a cheerleader rather than
Managers seem to me to be the people
a manager.
A
School.
Business
Harvard
to
went
who
somebody that can get people to
cheerleader is
or
do
normally
not
they might
things that
do
and ultimately, I can benefit from
to do,
want
personally but they can probably benefit from
it
them
convincing
trick is
the
I think
more.
it
they did something or
that they could benefit if
were
they
than
more
did
something or
tried
I guess I have a problem with the word
doing.
I
leadership.
cheerleader than
put
continually
wanting me to be
view
as a
as
more
role
my
manager, and I think
position
the
in
a manager, and I'd
a
I'm
people
of
rather be a
cheerleader.
"Surrendering the Greatest Pleasures of my Professional Life"
page 16
-
Curt discussed how frequently he makes conscious decisions not to
delegate tasks, but to do them himself.
Curt sounded as though it
was a difficult surrender: "I can't cite a specific example, but I
know [these situations) come up a few times a week, where there's an
opportunity." Even describing the situation as an "opportunity"
He gave an
imnies that he still desires to do detailed tasks.
example of his inability to "let go" of a project.
Prospective
tenants are given tours of the leasable building.
He usually
delegates the task, but occasionally intrudes on and takes over the
tour.
He related how one subordinate feels when he does that.
"Stan has an interesting line.
do you have me here for, if
made a good point.
When [L] do that, Stan says, 'What
you do this?'" Curt admitted that Stan
He noted that he gets too involved when he's
mood.
or
mindset
particular
a
... in
50,000
lease
to
need
they
in,
Somebody's walking
feet, and I say to myself 'Gee, I really want to
of
ten
had
we've
'Gee,
Or
[deal)'.
this
do
them
of
Half
here.
through
[prospects]
these
have
leased
somewhere
decided, so
haven't
perspective.'
another
else,
maybe
and
we
the
other
half
ought
to
have
So when the bigger-money deals were on the line, Curt believes he
should get involved.
He claimed to have "total confidence" in
Stan's ability to show the building, and was responsible for Stan's
hiring.
Steve stated that although Curt "delegates freely, he may not
be comfortable with the way that things are done." He commented that
for Curt to "see the forest, he needs to stop looking at the trees."
He also felt that it
was somewhat up to the employees to keep their
managers away from the detailed issues, and to keep them focused on
the "big picture."
page 17
In discussing his personal enjoyment in the development
business, Curt related the motivations of a real estate entrepreneur
to that of a high-tech computer entrepreneur.
and
interested
in
I'm
continually
amused
that
start
locally
entrepreneurs
the
high-tech
grow
incredibly
fast.
companies
and watch them
Then you pick up The [Boston] Globe and you see
very
I think real estate is
that they've left.
entrepreneurial.
I see
the same
thing
here in
that
the
excitement of facing a new
piece of
land,
finding
architects,
hiring
contractors,
-zoned
getting
property
buildings,
designing
the
But when you start
the chase is terrific.
a
with
up
gearing
of
process
implementation
that has to monitor construction, has to
staff
you're
buildings,
manage
and
space
market
And
then
organization.
build
an
to
starting
and
much
start
to
get institutionalized
things
That end of the business
less entrepreneurial.
is less exciting to me than the creation.
to
hire
good
I don't think it's real hard
property managers, pay them enough money, and
But
environment.
working
an attractive
create
rewarding.
personally
not
par ticularly
it's
Maybe
to some people it is but it isn't to me.
It's much more exciting to see a piece of land,
building and
project, see an old
create a new
create
down ...
or rip it
you want to redo it
finding
on
decisions
early
those
...
value
I find that very exciting.
something....
"Teaching and Letting Others Become the Experts"
-
Herb, as the
elder statesman, had developed a delegation style according to his
time constraints and talent.
good
at
detail
less
I'm
probably
I think
today, and I have more things to do than I did
to let people that
years ago.
Therefore, I try
are on the scene try to decide what they want to
do....
I'd
just
everything, but it
as
soon
let
everybody
do
doesn't work that way.
Thus, Herb worked towards sharing his expertise with his staff.
Curt did not address the issue of teaching others.
M
"How Important Is It to Do this Job Perfectly?"
- Herb, as
chairman of the firm, was very concerned that the company produce a
page 18
top-quality product: "I have a very strong belief that anything we
touch we should do as well as we know how.
And if
we can't do it
well, we shouldn't do it." Curt, Anthem's president, responded in
kind.
it
do
to
important
always
it's
think
I
frustrated
continually
I'm
I guess
perfectly.
because things aren't done perfectly, or what my
the solution
I know what
vision of perfect is.
everything
Do
is.
frustration]
the
[to
smaller
do
projects,
fewer
do
yourself,
in
three-deckers
buying
was
I
If
projects.
myself.
all
it
I suppose I could do
Cambridge,
But as the buildings get more sophisticated, and
to
have
you
complex,
more
get
the projects
know
probably
I
responsibilities.
the
delegate
a couple of dozen people who are in either the
same or very similar position to me, and I would
that
At
eQually felt.
frustration is
the
say
desire
a
or
level I think there's a frustration
right
the
picking
it's
whether
perfection,
for
are
grounds
facade or making sure the that the
When
green.
always right or that the grass is
think
I
held,
institutionally
gets
estate
real
I mean
it's an 9-to-5 job and they don't care.
say they care, or care a little, or
they might
they might care for an hour, or for one day, but
a
it's
because
care,
really
think they
I don't
job.
"Running a Business or Building an Organization" - Curt was
asked if
he was running a business or building an organization:
I see
as a business.
don't see Anthem
that
own
we
that
investments
of
as a series
it
marketing,
of
commonality
the
by
linked
are
but
debt/equity,
and
finance,
management,
The
alone.
stand
to
have
all
typically they
organization grows as the portfolio grows and as
I
the
business
gets
more
complex.
The
investments
traded,
sold,
or
bought
be
could
leaving
sold,
all
be
could
They
remortgaged.
The
organization...
the
for
little need
very
a
really
is
business
the
of
side
development
[with
together
come
[that]
investments
series of
the rest of the firm's services] and constitute
a business in a sense that there are people that
are delegating, people
people that
are managing,
there a
Believe me,
tasks.
performing
that are
businesses
create
who
people
successful
of
lot
page 19
organizations.
large
create
and
this,
of
out
as
that's
ultimately
if
know
don't
I
But
right
the
find
who
people
as
successful
our
of
all
sold
we
If
investments...
other
[our
stop
to
decided
and
investments,
I guess you
services], there'd be no business.
could
say
the
same
thing
stopped
you
If
stand.
wouldn't need any cooks.
about
selling
hamburger
a
hamburgers,
you
Analysis
The delegation profile developed from the questionnaire in
Appendix A2 is as follows:
DELEGATION PROFILE
Anthem Properties
Curt and Steve
Number of questions about delegation
that the supervisor and subordinate:
Disagreed and
the supervisor
felt he was a:
Agreed
Total
Supervisor is a:
Good delegator
18
7
25
Bad delegator
12
6
18
13
13
30
Total
This profile shows a low degree of delegation between Curt and
Steve.
Only 18 questions out of .13, or .12., resulted in agreement
that Curt was a good delegator.
However, the profile also
demonstrates that Steve is aware of Curt's shortcomings in the area
of delegation.
Although the two disagreed on 13 questions, or 30%
of the time, the 7-to-6 split shows that the two perceptions of Curt
as a delegator are generally similar.
The profile does appear to
reflect the actual behavior, as described by the specific delegated
task and by the qualitative comments included above.
Curt's view of the nature of the business as a series of
page 50
investments explains a great deal about the use of delegation at
Anthem.
His unwillingness to help his subordinates grow by
delegating authority and responsibility to them is evidence that he
does not feel that he should be developing an organization.
He
interferes and restricts both their authority and their
responsibility.
His "delegation" of the broker event to Steve did
Rather, Steve made inputs to
not constitute complete delegation.
Curt's major decisions about the event, and then Steve implemented
the details.
Even the implementation was not totally delegated, as
Thus, Curt restricted Steve's
approvals were needed along the way.
authority to approve event material.
Even the easier function of
delegating responsibility was difficult for Curt, as demonstrated
when he intruded on Stan's job functions.
you have me here for if
Stan's comment, "What do
you don't let me do it", reflects the
frustration felt by both him and Steve.
The fact that Curt told the
story indicates that he is aware of his tendency to get too involved
and not delegate.
Curt enjoys firefighting and problem solving.
He encourages
his subordinates to ask him for solutions to their own problems:
'What should I do next?' Proper delegation techniques would
encourage him to train his subordinates in the company culture, so
that they could make those decisions themselves.
Does the style work for Anthem?
It
appears so.
Steve and Stan
might leave the firm out of lack of professional growth potential,
but as long as Curt does his subordinates' work for them, they are
replaceable by others.
Since Herb is "not excited about expanding",
this staffing method should suffice for Anthem.
page 51
Curt's view of the
"investment portfolio" implies a buying and selling operation.
selling phase would not leave much for a staff to do.
The
Curt can
continue to "cheerlead" his staff, but the goals are not set
ambitiously high.
There is no need to delegate authority, or even
responsibility.
Interestingly, there does not seem to be a consistent company
culture.
Herb speaks differently of delegation than does Curt, and
in ten years of working together, Herb's approach did not rub off on
Curt.
This conflict of management styles can be confusing for Steve
or other employees.
If and when Curt takes over the company, the
message from the top should become clear.
the company were not stated.
If,
Curt's specific goals for
however, they do not extent beyond
that which Curt can personally involve himself in, they may be
attainable.
page 52
The Cross Company
The Cross Company is a small, Boston-based developer of
The firm was started less than five years
middle-income housing.
ago as a three-person partnership.
Projects undertaken by Cross are
on the order of one-hundred to three-hundred units, and entail
extensive rezoning and permitting.
Will, the firm's president, had
substantial previous experience with a large developer.
He
eventually headed up a division there, and had control over as many
He was an eauity partner in the firm, and
as thirty individuals.
has an advanced business schoold degree.
The vice president and
partner, John, was with Will from Cross' inception.
During the five
years at Cross, a major restructuring took place, whereby the
company's goals were clarified and a stronger commitment to the
firm's success was made.
This entailed the hiring of two younger
individuals at the project manager level.
Both Tim and Tom report
directly to Will, and also support the firm's other partner, John.
He
Ken, a secretary, was promoted to assistant project manager.
supports the activities of all three and reports directly to each as
the task requires.
Separate face-to-face interviews were conducted
with Will, Tim, and Tom.
Company
John and Ken were not interviewed.
Culture
Will spoke of the company being "deluged" with projects.
"What
I'm worrying about is how we are going to handle all the details and
the implementation with all the projects.
projects.
We have too many
We're overwhelmed with projects." Will views his role as
to "ask questions that [Tim and Tom] haven't thought about and point
out problems
that they just haven't encountered before."
page 53
Both Tim and Tom had problems with the management techniques
that Will had employed at Cross.
"I think its tough f or Will to
conceptualize the management issues in relation to people,
resources, and managing the process." Tim felt that Will understood
"the development product" better than he understood "the
organization." Tom was frustrated by Will's technique of monitoring
and advising his staff:
He
just
makes
lists and
lists
and
lists
of things for every project that he constantly
asks
questions
about....
He
makes
lists
for
himself constantly, and then he runs in and says
'Do
you
have
a
few minutes
to
talk?'...
It's
very
disruptive.
We
try
and
have
regular
project meetings but he also, for some
reason,
insists on doing this other stuff too.
Tom explained one of his major dislikes with the operation at
Cross.
He felt that even if
you do a task, and do it
well,
it
is
never complete:
well.
function
doesn't
organization]
[The
One of the most frustrating parts of being here
that a decision will be made based on a lot
is
of analysis and thought, and three months down
the
road,
as
something
sparks
Will,
he
will
start
again reinventing
the
wheel
on the same
issue.
You
can
never
move
ahead
and
put
something behind you to get to a goal.
The two project managers spoke at length of Will's desire to
stay abreast of the detailed work that they themselves were doing.
They recognize that this limits his ability to expand the business:
to
the
point
he's
finally gotten
I think
of
that
the
delegation
where
he
recognizes
things is
a huge
issue with
this company
and
something that really needs to be addressed.
Tom considered the role of "visionary" as split between Will
and the other two partners.
Will felt that recently, as he thought
more and more about the long-range program for Cross, that his
page 51
"visonary quotient had gone up dramatically." Nevertheless, he
admitted that the company's vision currently comes from "John, and
it
comes from serendipity." Tim felt that John was the visionary,
but that Will used his "brute force intelligence" to envision
opportunities for the company.
"He's so smart that when he gets the
chance to step back, he sees efficiencies and relationships that
other people don't see." Tim felt that all the professionals at
Cross were 'generalists', adding that they all "started as
developers with training and background in the other fields."
Will is not competitive with his staff, and enjoys teaching
them his specialties.
Tim felt that Will "tries to debate you into
his position", but conversely could be convinced of the merits of an
opposing viewpoint.
Will gave an example which bears this out.
four
or
three
does
Tom
invariably,
[A]lmost
are
I think
that
or
me,
bother
that
things
And of those three or four things, he'll
wrong.
come back and say 'You're wrong on one or two
discuss
we
And
for a reason.'
I did it
items,
it, and maybe he's right.
Will stated that one of his goals "was to try to improve the
team spirit of the company." He would like to be able to derive
"collegial satisfaction" by working together, but did not feel that
Cross had achieved that.
hasn't happened.
"It's a source of distress to me that it
And I don't know why it
hasn't happpened.
It
did
happen in my other job." He felt that the staff was intellectually
stimulating.
Company Goals
The original firm was founded with the goal of not having to
work very hard and to "have a lot of fun." The concept did not work:
"Everybody just said 'this whole fun thing isn't that much fun.
page 55
We
should really be running a business."' The principals "started to
organize a kind of business strategy" and overhauled the firm,
hiring the two project managers.
Will had spent time recently thinking about "where we are in
the product cycle, and who we are, what possibilities are out there,
keeping in mind that we want to increment up in terms of size." He
felt that he was "clearly running a business," not building an
organization.
The organization is there, he stressed, "to build the
net worth and to generate the profit."
As an example of
recent incident.
the company's lack of focus, Tom related a
Will had recently spent two days developing ideas
for a site acquisition.
Tom, upon learning of the proposal,
convinced Will that it was not what the company should be doing.
was concerned of the waste of those two days.
He
Tom then spoke of the
need for a business plan for their entrepreneurial firm.
The
business
plan
will
f orce
the
in the company to sit down and think about
the company is going, and not just react,
react to opportunities...
It
has to force
sit
down
in
a disciplined
way
and
think
what it is that we want to look for.
people
where
react,
us to
about
Tom thought that "we are unclear about where we're going now," and
felt it
would eventually be a mutual decision by the staff to
develop a direction.
Tom related the discussion the staff had about expanding their
project expertise into a new line of business.
that the existing management
He personally felt
style at Cross was preventing the
company from doing this.
If
we
wanted
to
do
a [project
as
large
as] 75 State Street, there's no way we could do
it
with our existing organization.
This was
an
page 56
issue when we started thinking about alternative
delegate
John
and
Will
Can
lines.
business
new
this
to
resources
their
sufficiently to give
they
way
no
was
there
Because
business line?
still
and
it
do
to
able
be
to
going
were
said
they
that
involvement
of
level
the
maintain
people's
of
lot
a
was
it
think
I
liked.
they
who
subordinates,
the
primarily
thoughts,
toe
to
line
tough
a
be
would
that
thought
because
the
systems
[management]
weren't
there.
projects had not been run in a
The [existing]
way in which we could continue to run them and
They
line.
business
have this associated
still
many
too
control,
much
too
demanding
were
details go through them.
Tom continued with his thoughts about delegation as a means
toward achieving the company's goals.
so
delegation
proper
be
needs to
There
in
people
the people, Tim and I, grow as
that
more
and
more
on
take
and
job,
this
more
and
more
have
and
responsibility,
things.
authority, and experience more and more
We,
And that has to come with delegation to us.
on our end, pull as hard as we can for more of
has to be a
But on the other hand, it
that.
two-way street.
Tim wondered what would happen if
Will died suddenly.
He
thought that Will must have delegated sufficiently because he felt
that Cross could continue operations under such circumstances.
Tim
remarked that whether a business can survive an owner's absence
"depends on who's left behind when he's not around.
crumble here, and it
It wouldn't
doesn't crumble here, when he's not around."
Both Tim and Tom expressed a confidence in their own work that was
not respected by Will.
Tim felt that the closer that items were to Will's area of
expertise, "the more control he exercises over whether or not he has
final say.
He felt that the decision-making process at Cross was
"generally very democratic, for better or for worse.
page 57
It's not
delegating: 'You do this and I'll make the final call' because he's
very open to input."
Tim said that John claims that the eventual goal is for the
senior partners to phase out of the daily operations at Cross.
"I
think that the goal is to try to get the machine running smoothly
enough that the operator can step away for a little bit and tinker
with something else."
Tim gave a strong reason why Will was not easily delegating
authority to the project managers:
When
you
get
right
down
to
it
it
is
and
money
his
part
some
It's
firm.
[Will's]
you
if
So
line.
the
on
signature
certainly his
should
guy
this
'Christ,
say
you
just stand back
he
If
really be entitled to make the decisions.
hang
to
able
be
should
he
himself,
hang
to
wants
himself.'
Tim felt Will did not need to have "extensive control" in most areas
of the company's work.
Tim feels that Will is "reasonably good"
about recognizing when his own viewpoint is wrong.
Specific Delegated Task
Tom chose the following task as an example of specific
delegation at Cross.
The development of an apartment complex by The
Cross Comapny entailed a series of meetings with neighbors to
explain the project and "turn them around to support the project."
Tom "wanted very much to be the one to run the neighborhood
meetings, and speak to them, and have all the consultants and Will
and everybody else just sit and chime in when it
was necessary."
Will had always run similar meetings at his previous job.
Tom felt
that Will agreed to let him run the meetings because of the quality
of the work that he had done in the past; he believed that they had
page 58
built a relationship of trust in the year since Will had hired him.
Will was doing many projects, and said that Tom had a better grasp
of this project's details than he had, and agreed to delegate the
job to Tom.
Will also recognized that Tom had built up a
relationship with the neighbors.
Instruction and Shaping the Job - Will and Tom met often
beforehand to prepare strategy for the public meeting.
There was
also a mock meeting held in which the presentation was rehearsed.
Tom supplemented the preparation by introducing ideas and strategies
beyond those which Will had requested.
Will spoke of Tom's
bringing
in a lot of consultants to the meeting "because he wanted to do a
great job," but Will later regretted the cost of bringing them.
Will agreed that Tom was "very important" in putting together the
meeting.
Monitoring - Preparing for the actual meeting, Will "figured
the worst that could happen is that Tom could start out badly and I
would jump in." Will was concerned about the cost of conducting the
meeting, but acknowledged that he had passed on the opportunity to
veto Tom's plan to bring in the consultants at considerable expense.
Tom thought that after the first meeting, Will "backed off, because
he felt, OK, well he can handle it,
it
so I don't need to worry about
any more." Tom added that Will "constantly asked questions and
asked for updates on everything." Meetings were ad hoc.
Feedback
- Tom recalled Will telling him in a chance
parking-lot meeting the morning after the public meeting: "You did a
great job last night.
It would have been a great job for someone
who had been in the business twenty years." However, he described
page 59
the feedback differently:
the
ride
back
from
the one-hour
During
meeting, I told him what was the matter with the
stuff
I
did
Forget
about
all
the
project.
later.
Really, the
feedback
was
in
the
hour
And
it
was
mixed
with
drive
in
the
car.
complements.
Somebody can't work that hard and
not get complemented.
Tom had only recalled the positive feedback.
He described it
as
not a
typical thing that
happens
around here.
It
was one of the very few times, at least at
that stage of me being here, that he really said
anything absolutely positive like that.
Typically, Tom said, "there is very little feedback.
kind of feedback where if
It's the
you get 98 percent of [a task] correct,
the question is 'Well, what about 99 and 100 [percent]?'"
Results -
Will described Tom's performance on the delegated
task of running the public meetings as "spectacular".
Will also
rated Tom's overall competence as "good".
The Second Hierarchical Level of Delegation
The organizational structure at Cross permitted research into
delegation practices and attitudes between the second and third
levels of hierarchy.
Both Tim and Tom were asked about their
interface with Ken, the recently promoted assistant project manager.
The two project managers drew a distinct line between professionals
and non-professionals.
What would work between Will and themselves
would not work between themselves and Ken.
expressed concern over Ken's abilities.
Both Tim and Tom
However, to motivate Ken
and to help themselves out, they together recommended that Ken be
given extra responsibility, and a "garbage title", assistant project
manager, "which we thought was a perk."
page 60
Tim remarked that Ken was not always earger to accept
responsibility.
He related how Will would ask Ken to research
something, and would ask him to "tell me what you think." Tim said
that Ken doesn't like to take on that duty and would tell Will, "I'm
a Spanish major, and not a statistician....
I'll get the data; you
interpret it." Tim thought that "that's the postion Ken is
comfortable in." Tim described a recent task that he had delegated
to Ken; the quality was "well monitored".
He described the quality
of the work as "well presented, well received." The results were up
to Tim's standards; he rated Ken's overall competence as good to
fair.
Tom contrasted his own style of delegation to Will's:
to
things
explain
...
not
I
and
why,
them
tell
I
do.
I
the way
people ...
to
trying
I'm
where
and
context,
the
tell them
get, so when they come across information that
we may not had thought about that relates to it,
X,
'Do
If all you say is
they won't discard it.
won't
they
and
Z
and
Y,
X,
do
they'll
Y, and Z',
look at U, V, and W because it's not part of the
task.
Will
does
Tom admitted that delegation was often difficult:
hard
very
a
I have
something that
It's
line,
because, bottom
That's
myself.
with
time
manager.
project
a
as
it
for
responsible
I'm
I'm dealing with a different kind of person who
dealing with
a subordinate to me than he is
is
real
not a
who's
someone
with
dealing
I'm
me.
career
same
the
have
not
does
who
estate person,
in
interested
not
is
do,
I
that
commitment
different
whole
a
It's
9-to-5.
past
working
I
together.
this
in
I are
and
Will
ballgame.
my
to
responsibility
of
sense
a great
have
projects and I don't know that my subordinates
do.
Tom remarked that "it
should be easier for someone in Will's
position to delegate to me, than for me to delegate to somebody
page 61
else." But Tom seemed unable to step outside his own framework
within the company.
What applies to Will as a delegator most
certainly applies to Tom himself.
I'm
to
me
and
I
screw
up
If
Will
delegates
If
I delegate to somebody else and
responsible.
I'm
always
they
screw
up
I'm
responsible.
responsible.
I have a
different
attitude
about
the company, about my career, about my business,
about
my responsibilities here,
than
the people
that
I delegate
to....
There
will
always
be
a
tension between staff
and support people and the
professionals in a company.
The best thing you
can do is try
and hire somebody that will really
have a commitment to what they're doing, ... and
are
willing
to
learn.
The
only
other way
you
can
ever
get
around
this
is
to
build
up
this
relationship of trust over time.
Tom is thus unable to see the contradiction is his own behavior and
attitudes towards delegation.
Supervisor's Adoption of the Managerial
Role
The following sections present information about the manager
and his attitude towards and comfort with his managerial
responsibilities.
The headings in this section are abbreviated
forms of the quotations read to the subjects.
The subjects'
comments may not have been in direct response to the quotation under
which it
is presented, but rather gathered during the course of the
interviews.
"The New, Uncomfortable Job and Art of Leadership" -
Will
continually expressed his interest in learning the new role of
manager.
that
the fact
struck by
Increasingly, I'm
than
a
anything other
run
if
you're going to
one-project company, one has to depend on highly
all
the
to
implement
skilled
subordinates
you find....
The
of
the
projects
that
details
president of the company is also identifying new
and run
do that
profit opportunities; he can't
page 62
the
training
means
also
It
projects....
a
in
projects
the
analyze
to
subordinates
in a certain way,
them
certain way, to report
You need
a certain way.
and schedule them in
meetings twice a week to help them because they
just haven't bumped into all these problems.
In this role as trainer, Will wants to impart his ideas of
reporting and scheduling, developed primarily at his last job.
Tim
felt that Will delegated a good deal of responsibility.
still
he
on,
focusing
thing Will's
the
On
but
mistakes,
make
to
gives you the opportunity
more
much
is
mistake
the
of
magnitude
the
more
there's
direction,
more
There's
narrow.
fall
you
lets
He
order.
more
feedback, there's
cliff.
a
off
fall
not
down the stairs,
Tim felt more freedom to work in areas in which Will was less
f amiliar:
On things that he has a better grounding
more
able to
he is
still delegates, but
he
in,
the
that
so
process
effectively constrain the
In
smaller.
is
mistake
the
of
size
potential
the other areas [that he doesn't know as well),
he'll be
because
cliff
he'll let you fall of the
falling off the cliff, too.
So an anomaly existed: the more expertise that Will had in an area,
the worse he was at delegating and in letting others learn these
skills through practicing them.
Will said that "increasingly, in
every project the project manager knows more about the project than
I do." He noted that he delegates after assessing how well the
subordinate could do the task.
Tom then discussed how Will's style intruded on his own.
He
feels the conflict of styles destroys any potential synergy from
better using each staff member's respective skills.
and
can
has
it
delegating
time
a really hard
has
Will
then staying out of your hair so that you
there
If
the worst.
That's
done.
get it
been a discussion and a decision made about
page 63
to
going
am
I
then
and
to proceed,
way
a
an
had
have
I
times
that.... countless
implement
to
about
am
I
When
me.
around
end run performed
to
tasks
certain
delegating
by
it
implement
go
and
will bypass me
he
below me,
somebody
time.
the
all
happens
It
them.
to
directly
discussed
I have
frustrating.
incredibly
It's
this with him many times, but he does the same
thing over and over again.
We're
position.
a bad
and I are in
Tim
left
not
we're
time
responsible but at the same
At
decisions.
alone to make our own independent
not
is
he
where
times when that does happen,
phase,
the implementation
up
to screw
around
things get done a lot better.
The reason he's so extraordinarily busy is
on a lot of this
because he doesn't back off
that he should back off on and let other
stuff
people
do
it.
You
kind
of
have
these
parallel
doing
he's
because
time,
all the
things running
it.
doing
you're
at the same time
it
One thing that we have tried to tell [Will]
over and over and over again is that he cannot
has to
He
that.'
this or do
just tell us 'Do
loses
he
Otherwise,
it.
wants
he
why
us
tell
that
opinion
an
have
may
We
any input from us.
a
and
ridiculous,
is
at
get
what he's trying to
it
done
we've
that
Or
effort.
of
waste
already.
"Surrendering the Greatest Pleasures of my Professional Life"
Will was extremely provoking on the issue of his having to change
from the role of specialist to that of generalist.
like
f eel
I
At first
metamorphosis.
I think it's one of
it.
somebody who started a
specialist...
a
been]
to
how
about
thinking
more
a
generalist, how to be
a
in
caught
I'm
Now I like
I hated it.
the hardest things for
business where he [had
time
my
half
I spend
effective
more
a
be
effective leader.
He spoke of liking the challenge of the task:
had gotten so good at what I was doing
in my
I could do the stuff
got boring.
that it
I
Company],
Cross
[The
started
When I
sleep....
get
would
we
how
of
thinking
time
my
spent all
Now I spend 90 percent of my time
our jobs.
the
lead
to
going
am
I
how
about
thinking
and
interesting
very
it
find
I
And
company.
exciting. I enjoy the learning experience.
I
page 61
-
Tom, however, saw Will's transition in a much less positive
light.
He could not understand how Will could espouse the desire to
build a staff if
he wasn't ready to accept the managerial duties
inherent in building a staff:
to being
made
the
transition
has not
Will
a manager.
He is a really bad manager.
He is a
likes
[the
He
probably
great
detail person....
details] better than being a manager and dealing
all
this
people
issues
and
with
all
the
organizational
crap.
If
you
want
your
own
company, and you want all the 'hands-on', you've
Because once you start
got to be by yourself.
hiring subordinates that you have to look over
...
so you can handle more projects, you don't
That's the role you picked for
have any choice.
yourself.
Tim added that company growth is hindered by Will's love for the
tangible, detailed facets of the development business.
down
the
projects
move
further
As
the
to be
pike, the number
of decisions that have
made increase exponentially, and as we take on
more
projects,
there's
just more
minutia,
but
he's reluctant
to
give
up
the
details,
because
he
said,
'I want
to need
to
talk
about
the
the
fun
stuff,
that's
details because
that's
what's nice, that's the tangible part.'
"Teaching and Letting Others Become the Experts" -
Tom had
given a good deal of thought to why Will insisted on involving
himself in the details of his project managers'
if work background was responsible or whether
work.
He wondered
it was innate to the
individual.
up
you were
brought
It
depends
on how
through the ranks [of a large corporation).
You
get exposure
to
being a
manager.
They
train
nobody
companies
entrepreneurial
In
managers.
estate
managers.
In
a
real
ever
trains
development
company
people
rarely
train
So then it
goes back to what type of
managers.
personality
are you.
Are
you
a perfectionist
yourself?
Are you somebody who always wanted to
page 65
never
you
yourself because
things
do
as
well
do
things
else could
anybody
could? That's the worst possible thing.
thought
as
you
Tom wondered what would effect a change in Will's style:
like that
into this kind
You put somebody
of
situation
-there
would
have
to
be
an
before
on his part
enormous desire to change
In
addition,
he
would have
that
would happen.
to build up enough trust in people to be able to
back off.
I don't know what would force him to
do that.
"How Important Is It to Do this Job Perfectly?" - Will
discussed the time and money constraints that forces you to come up
with "an 80-percent solution." He admitted to being "increasingly
comfortable" with this 80-percent solution.
He spoke of "trying to
get over" feeling that you get more from the 100-percent solution
than you would from the 80-percent solution.
on perfection when he had more time.
He had always insisted
"Time, more than anything
else, becomes the determinor of what you can do."
Tom related his own personal feelings on the issue:
the
idea
my
life
with
I do everything in
a 3.8
of, there's X amount of resource, and if
If
you
is good enough, you don't need a four.
can do three things at 3.8 and one thing at a
I
1.0, it's better to do three things at a 3.8.
constantly
have
a tension
with Will
over
this,
because
he
wants all the
questions
answered,
thought about, and finished at a stage that does
not need that amount of effort.
He then gave a detailed example of how Will does not properly
prioritize the company's work.
we
are
doing,
we
that
this
project
On
have a sixty-day time period before we are at
There are certain things that
$50,000.
risk for
I want to
I want to know in those sixty days.
I want to know
the site is half wet....
know if
All
I
dump
on
site.
waste
if
there's
a toxic
need to know about the market right now is that
the for
lots in town, and
there aren't (m]any
page 66
minimum
absolute
the
selling,
are
that
few
the
Will wants to know
$70,000.
is
[they will] get
many
how
$250,000,
go for
did this lot
why
drives
absolutely
It
should we build.
bathrooms
I
me crazy to spend my time and energy on that.
difficult
very
It's
things.
prioritize
to
like
he
why
that's
I think
to do that with Will....
a week, why he's
ends up working seven days
He never stops
always trying to play catch-up.
of
implications
broader
the
about
think
to
And
issues.
long-range
policy, the
things, the
he gets fewer projects done.
Which
You really need to make a decision.
That this one thing be
is more important to me?
done 100 percent perfectly, or I do three things
his
perfectly.
It's
97 percent
that
are
done
be
one
to
goal
that
he
wants
If
company.
can be one at
[project] at 100 percent, then it
100
percent.
I wouldn't stay.
But
I
wouldn't
probably
be
here.
I can't work like that.
Tim felt that "Will looks at every detail to be perfect," while
he and Tom "know that every detail doesn't have to be perfect." He
spoke of his own techical background, where he learned about
significant digits and orders of magnitude.
He felt that perhaps
Will's non-technical background did not provide this training.
Tim
described how he liked to work:
You
delegate
decisions
the little
work by
has
his
are never
and
you
things
first,
the
big
do
You
make
the
big
the
big
things.
right, and then you can hemorrhage on
ones and it
still doesn't
matter.
We
necessity at the project level, and Will
ticker
items that
outstanding
lists of
prioritized.
Tom related his view of the difficulty and the need to
delegate.
motivated
that
is
think
anybody
I don't
and smart and good at what they do likes to see
somebody else screw something
up that they've
like
it
do.
I
certainly
don't
given them
to
when
I'm
responsible
for
it.
But
it's
like
raising
children.
You
can't
do
everything
for
them all the time.
If
you do you might as well
not have them do anything because they'll never
get it
right if
they never try
it.
So the issue
page 67
is giving them stuff they can mess up on when
you figure out
won't really count. Maybe
to
give them
something
that
you know
anyway.
And then sit
going to do yourself
and go over it with them.
it
a way
you're
down
Analysis
The delegation profile developed from the questionnaire in
Appendix A2 is as follows:
DELEGATION PROFILE
THE CROSS COMPANY
Will, Tim, and Tom
Number of questions about delegation
that the supervisor and subordinate*:
Agreed
Disagreed and
the supervisor
felt he was a:
Supervisor is a:
Good delegator
17
Bad delegator
15
32
Total
Total
13
30
18
16
48
*Note: This profile averages the two subordinates, Tim and
Tom.
This profile shows both poor delegation characteristics and
very disparate opinions as to Will's style of delegation.
The very
high score in the "agree,/bad delegation" of 15 of A8, or 31%,
reflect Will's need to pay personal attention to detail.
However,
the most striking aspect of the profile is the manner in which the
subjects disagreed.
Will felt he was a good delegator ten more
times than did Tim and Tom.
Much of this difference reflects Will's
ongoing attempt to change his management style and approach to
delegation.
Will had extreme difficulty answering many of the
true-false survey questions.
He deliberated at length before
answering, and many times the answer included "I'm working on that"
page 68
or "that's increasingly true." The delegation profile reflects the
desired change that Will is trying to implement.
This change will
quotes Laird and Laird as
be no easy feat.
McConkey (1971)
estimating that "it
takes five years to change from underdelegation
to adequate delegation." (p.
82) Will's answers project an
optomistic future, while the subordinates' reflect their perception
of Will's current behavior.
Will claims to have faith in the abilities of his staff, but
notes that they're young:
To
the
extent
that
I
say
they're
good,
it
they
means not that they don't have potential --intelligence
and
potential
tremendous
have
the
developing
slowly
they're
that
it's
good
extremely
them
make
to
experience
year
last
the
in
improvement
The
developers.
astonishing.
just
has been
He did feel a tension between what he expected of the project
managers, and what he was getting.
a
or
misunderstanding
a
there's
If
the
it's
dissonance,
or
conflict
psychological
project
junior
as
them
I still view
that
fact
senior
as
themselves
view
and they
managers
junior
as
I view them
When
managers.
project
project managers, that means that I'm going to
be much more involved in what they do and how
It's a
and give them more feedback.
they do it,
problem.
The hard feelings caused by the distinction between the two
levels of project management seem unnecessary in the Cross
environment.
Will's withholding of trust and confidence until the
project managers reach some undetermined skill level was
demonstrated in his unwillingness to let them handle the project
details.
question.
The hiring practice at Cross, therefore, comes into
Will hired two young development professionals, and had
page 69
certain expectations of their abilities.
Perhaps Will does have a
more accurate picture of their actual competence.
What becomes
clear, however, is that there exists misunderstandings as to what
the project managers' levels of authority and responsibilities
should be.
Tim and Tom no doubt had expectations of entrepreneurial
freedom in a growing, four-person organization.
Will carries with
him his ideas of bureaucratic management, where subordinates do what
the manager tells them to do, and are motivated by promotion or
other organizational rewards.
and resolved.
The expectations should be discussed
Chapter 2 presented
McConkey's (197q)
six areas of
agreement that should be reached in delegating tasks; these included
agreement on job scope, results desired, level of authority, time
schedule for completion, control and feedback mechanisms, and both
parties' acceptance of their duties.
The Cross group fails the test
in at least four areas.
Interestingly, the hiring practice also applies to the second
level of delegation.
Ken.
Tim and Tom both have difficulty delegating to
Neither was responsible for Ken's hiring, although they did
recommend he be delegated additional duties.
The problems they
encountered are very similar to Will's, only exacerbated because Ken
had no stated desire for increased responsibility, and also because
Ken was "inherited" and was not their chosen assistant.
Again,
matching subordinate and supervisor expectations is critical to
successful delegation.
Leana (1986)
found that congruence of the
supervisor's and subordinate's goals affected performance.
(p.
770) Subordinates with goals similar to the managers' are the "right
people" to delegate to, as Bellisario and Hesburgh referred to in
page 70
Chapter 2 (Horton, 1986).
They found it
easier to trust people they
hired themselves, partially because of perceived goal congruence.
formed without a clear statement of
The Cross Company was first
objectives; even after restructuring, no business plan was created.
The formulation of a business plan would help Will identify the
project goals for the company, as well as indicate criteria for
hiring people to accomplish the goals.
With a clear plan, Will
could focus his attention on reaching both project and company
goals, and could establish milestones within the schedules.
Without
a plan, Will is able to reach back into any project and pick up some
of his staff's missed details.
Tom had indicated that he couldn't
work under those conditions.
Let the business plan dictate whether
or not to pursue "one project at 100 percent or three projects at 97
percent." Then build the staff to suit the predetermined choice and
management style.
page 71
The Diamond Group
The Diamond Group is a national developer of land for
industrial, commercial, and residential use.
It focuses its efforts
on the acquisition, assembly, and rezoning of large parcels.
The
Boston office of the firm is autonomous within its northeast region,
but its strategic goals are developed within the framework of the
parent firm.
The Boston office was created 25 years ago, and has
been headed the last 15 by Rudy, the company president.
Alan, the
Development Manager, has been with the firm for one year and reports
to Rudy.
firms.
He had prior experience with a number of small real estate
Stu, the Development Supervisor, has been with Diamond for
ten years and supports the activities of both Rudy and Alan.
other lower-level professionals round out the staff.
Two
Separate
face-to-face interviews were conducted with Rudy, Alan, and Stu.
Company Culture
Rudy describes his firm as entrepreneurial because he has
"control over our own destiny.
We go out and find our own projects.
We're not taking direction from any hierarchy." However, he does not
have his own money invested in the projects; the projects are
financed by the parent firm.
Incentives for all the professionals
are dependent on the success of the projects.
Rudy saw himself as
the "visionary" of the company; Alan and Stu agreed with this
assessment.
Rudy has no advanced business degree; Alan has.
Rudy exhibits a paternal feeling towards the group, and takes
full responsibility for everything that the firm does.
here
to
staff
is
It's my vision, and the
help
me
bring that vision
to
fruition.
And
I
hire people and train
people with
that in mind.
Usually when I don't [achieve
the goal] it's not
page 72
the fault of the staff
the blame lies right here.
or
anybody
else.
Usually
Stu commented that Rudy is "not looking to build an empire.
What he's looking to do is satisfy the needs of the company." He
felt that Rudy had "genuine concern for his subordinates.
He tries
to get them to develop to their potential without causing them undue
hardship." Stu felt personally motivated by what Rudy had delegated
to him, although he spoke of the "personal satisfaction of being
able to take on these additional duties and responsibilities and not
have to bother him with all those details that he used to take care
of."
Alan used a baseball analogy to describe the way in which Rudy
motivates his staff: "Rudy is the pitcher in the ballgame, and I
think all of us step up to the plate, and he throws the balls and we
try to hit them out."
Alan spoke of the environment in which he likes to work, and
felt that Rudy had created that environment at Diamond.
I
people
business,
development
the
Not
wheelers.
free
much
pretty
are
know
but
free-wheeling,
irresponsibly
erratically
become
to
with enough freedom to go explore, and
To do that, you have to have a style
creative.
that allows someone to do something more than
do specific tasks,
sharply at 8:00 am,
come in
those
finish
and
back
and come
have lunch,
requirement
The job
tasks, and leave at 5:00.
ends up being
For me, it
takes.
is whatever it
more than 8-to-5.
In
Alan discussed the open nature of the project work at Diamond.
There was no internal competition, and felt that Rudy encouraged the
use of delegation with no reservations about losing one's own
special competence.
Alan noted that he had worked for large
corporations
page 73
where
you cubbyhole your
information
because
you want to prove yourself, and you prove it by
being the only person that knows what's in that
Rudy
it's
a group
effort...
cubbyhole.
Here,
[to me]
has opened up the concept of sharing
why
the reason
is
primarily
[Delegation]
again.
It's
a
sizeable
I left
my
previous
company.
growth
because
company,
but
it's
stifled from
the owner has to make
every decision,
all the
way down to the wine glasses for the most recent
condo
reception.
I think that
stifles.
I think
the exact opposite occurs here.
Rudy sets the
organizational
tone.
Rudy
is
not
fearful
at
all.
Should I be fearful
of passing
the
baton
[to
our
new
well-qualified
hire]?
Absolutely
[which)
This company has a group effort
not.
can only succeed if
it's an open system where
things are passed down, or passed around.
Alan spoke of a competitive spirit at Diamond, but that it
was
directed outside the firm.
I say to
myself,
'Do
I want
to
keep
a
competitive edge?' In a lot of big companies you
surely would want to keep a competitive edge....
You want to have that little closet feeling that
'I'm
the
only
one
who
knows
the
absolute
everything
about
this project'
attitude.
But
I
think
that
Rudy
clearly
sets
[a
different]
tone.
Alan mentioned that people participate in compensation "as a group."
This was not always the case, however.
His predecessor at Diamond
was a "cubbyholer" who leapfrogged over Stu in the hierarchy.
predecessor was described as having an "I" attitude.
everyone there today had a "we"
The
Alan felt that
attitude.
Alan described the importance of having quality people in the
organization who can work together to complete successful projects.
you
industry,
to
be
successful
In
this
You have to be
don't have to be bloodthirsty.
aggressive ... taking a creative approach to see
Any fool
successful.
if
a particular product is
The
deal.
a
make
and
a
project
pick
can
is that the right deal and can you
question is,
make it
successful?
And even if you can make it
here
is
bottleneck
the
biggest
successful,
page 71
people.
Company
Goals
Rudy spoke frequently of his patience in the development
industry.
The financial backing of the parent firm enabled Diamond
to hold land longer than might an independent developer.
Projects
were carefully chosen to fit the existing staff's capacity to
perform.
Alan spoke of putting together a more updated and comprehensive
business plan than the one which is existence at Diamond.
However,
he said that there was no question as to what their goals were.
"The corporate mission is well defined and the statement of
philosophy is there, too."
Alan related that growth plans for the company were modest.
and
profit-wise
grow
can
We
grow
to
have
then]
would
[we
but
activity-wise,
held
closely
a
Rudy likes
I think
people-wise.
reasonable
a
produce
can
that
organization
Diamond itself does not have
amount of profit.
We're part of a
company.
billion-dollar
a
be
to
a
grow
can
We
estate group....
real
national
involved
get
before Rudy can't
sizeable amount
in a project.
There was a definite operational style whereby Rudy maintains
close control over all project activities.
Alan attributed the
ability to delegate to the small size of the company.
He felt also
that Rudy wants to hire the best available person.
Rudy compared the entrepreneurial developer to the founder of
the high-tech computer company.
The success of the person who
starts and develops a small firm depends on the ability to share
authority.
Rudy describes the computer entrepreneur who sells his
company:
page 75
He goes back to the garage to invent the
so
And he can only bring it
next new widget.
And that's
far,
because he ca'n't delegate well.
There are a lot of
the same in our business.
there,
small
people
out
successful
very
grow
because
will never
entrepreneurships, that
nobody can ever do it the way the boss wants it
never
delegate
it
out.
done.
He
can
Consequently, he is a prisoner.
He doesn't see these founders "bailing out", but just sees the
companies "not going anyplace."
Specific Delegated Task
Rudy described the task that he delegated to Alan when Alan
first
joined Diamond one year ago.
The looming task was one of the
key reasons why Rudy hired someone at that time.
Alan was to
supervise the post-sellout of a condominium project, working out the
"punch-list" problems; he would be clearing up the defects that the
new owners may have found with their condominiums.
Alan would
investigate any complaints, and take action on them.
Action ranged
from doing nothing, to repairing workmanship, to offering cash
settlements to the owners in lieu of repairs.
Alan was not
authorized to make cash settlements without Rudy's approval.
hired Alan to do this task because he found "it
Rudy
got difficult to
deal directly with an apartment owner at my level.
It's a lot
easier having a buffer in between, where Alan can take the
hard-nosed approach." Alan described the job as being the
"pooper-scooper man at the end of the parade." Alan said that he was
delegated the task because Rudy did not have the time to do it
himself, and because at Rudy's position as president, he should not
be doing this level of work.
Instruction and Shaping the Task - Rudy enlisted not just
page 76
Alan's help, but opened the issue up to the whole staff.
He asked,
"How do you see solving the problem?" Instructions to Alan were "to
Alan said that
take a fairly tough position" with the condo owners.
Rudy gave him general guidelines, but "basically all I had to do was
answer the phone.
It was that simple."
Monitoring and Feedback
- "Formal"
monitoring of Alan's
progress was through weekly staff meetings, but they "sat and talked
on a daily basis." Rudy feels that he generally provides a lot of
critique and feedback: "It's the way I've learned to train
people....
I've got a major investment in these people.
I chose
them because I thought they were capable." According to Alan,
"monitoring ... could be a yell from the office next door." The
smallness of the company was used to explain the informal monitoring
and ad hoc feedback.
Results - Rudy's prime concern with delegating the task was
that Alan was new to the firm, and Rudy "Just didn't know how well
he would be able to handle some of the more difficult people.
As it
turned out I was very pleased with the way he handled things." The
results were up to his own standards.
The example just described is a case of incomplete delegation.
Alan was given the responsibility to solve the problems, but
authority was not granted to him to make decisions involving cash
settlements.
responsibility.
Rudy rationalized this method: "Ultimately, it's my
[Diamond] is such a small group.
If it
were a
larger group, then yes, he'd have the authority to spend up to a
certain amount, but there'd always be a cap on it." The buffer
system can be effective, but might better be described as only a
page 77
smokescreen.
Diamond's hierarchy might imply to condo owners that
decisions could not be made at Alan's level, when in fact they
That would be the best of both worlds for Diamond.
could.
Rudy
would not have to bother with each authorization, while Alan could
deflect many of the requests by claiming that Rudy would have to
decide.
The "emotional" nature of dealing with the client affected
Rudy's decision to delegate.
He would have dealt with industrial or
commercial tenants himself because, he said, that would entail
"business" transactions, dealing with "business people." Again,
delegation is seen as a way to avoid unpleasantries: "I shouldn't
waste my time doing that.
People love to talk to the president of
the company." Proper delegation techniques do not entail delegating
just the unwanted tasks.
But Rudy favors a hands-on approach to
commercial or industrial buildings where
that somebody
any problems
be legitimate
opinion,
would
meet
with
the
individuals
problem,
would
come
to
a
problem, then I'd delegate to
that particular thing done.
would
have,
in my
I would
problems.
to
discuss
the
resolution
of
the
Alan or Stu to get
Here too, we see Rudy's interpretation of delegation to only include
responsibility and not authority.
Rudy therefore termed delegation
of the condo task atypical, as compared with his usual style of
dealing directly with "business people".
delegation was typical of Rudy's style.
Alan felt that this
Rudy rated Alan's overall
competence as "very good".
Supervisor's Adoption of the Managerial Role
The following sections present information about the manager
and his attitude towards and comfort with his managerial
page 78
responsibilities.
The headings in this section are abbreviated
forms of the quotations read to the subjects.
The subjects'
comments may not have been in direct response to the quotation under
which it
is presented, but rather gathered during the course of the
interviews.
"The New, Uncomfortable Job and Art of Leadership" - Rudy's
style of and comfort with delegation as he practices it
developed as
Diamond grew beyond himself as a "one-man show" and as a one-project
company.
to
work
with
someone
I
really
have
get
closely for a period of time before I can
you go
the comfort level where I can say, 'OK,
I gained a lot of confidence when
and do it'.
about
a
talking
in
come
back and
Stu would
your
him
'What's
I'd
ask
situation,
particular
recommendation?', and 90 percent of the time it
The more
was the same action that I would take.
my confidence
I started to see that, the more
thought.
a conscious
wasn't
grew.
[Delegation)
in
get
involved
going
to
I was
was
that
It
some
really
minor
everything, and
I'd delegate
to
but as
things really started
things to him,
in
him,
I
confidence
and
I
gained
heat
up,
started to delegate more to him.
Alan felt that Rudy allowed him a good deal of freedom in his
daily activities.
He said that "we're pretty much allowed to walk
down the road a little.
Not so much that you get lost, but walk
down the road, see where you go."
He spoke of developing a comfort level with the people he
delegates to.
He feels that very few people can make the transition
from specialist to generalist.
A lot of people are asked to do it,
and
know
if
I don't
job of it.
do a lousy
they
there
is
a way
to do
it.
I
think
everyone
when
they
realizes that they have to delegate
accept
the
transition.
But
they
don't;
they
don't know how to.
page 79
Stu felt comfortable with Rudy as a teacher, and as a leader.
He described Rudy's approach to delegating tasks to him:
'Here's the task, here's where we have to
you run into any problems let me know.
be, if
If you need any assistance let me know.' I think
if
he delegates the job he expects you to be
able to
handle
it.
If
you can't
handle
it,
he
and
does not have a problem with you going in
asking him questions as to how to get there or
how to obtain that objective.
Stu, however, also understood delegation to be something
different than both "textbook" and what Rudy defined it
to be.
To
him, goals-setting is neither participatory, nor delegated, but
rather centralized and then shared.
He commented:
Rudy has a keen sense of what people can
those
of
the
delegation
and
handles
handle
well.
very
to
those
individuals
responsibilities
And I think he keeps us informed very well on
are, and
what our goals are, what are targets
what our objectives are."
"Surrendering the Greatest Pleasures of my Professional Life"
Alan described his own managerial talents.
-
He explained that he had
the fear of watching someone else mess up a task that he delegated
to him.
"That's why I probably spend more hours here than anybody
else," double checking the work of others or doing it
himself.
to
I
have
of
'mess-up',
I'm
scared
If
of
the
scared
I'm
is
because
if
it
analyze
that
anyone
I just
insecure
am
employee, or
And I don't think
can't do it as good as I can.
A hell of a lot of people can do
that's true.
I
I can.
than
better
probably
it
as good or
different
several
in
a specialist
to be
used
my
as
those
areas
and
I
still hold
areas,
as
a
But
my
job
now,
especially
fortes.
of
generalist.
It's
kind
manager,
is
as
a
funny, because I like to be in the trenches a
lot, but I can't.
He spoke further of his own love of creating a building:
page 80
It's
like
taking
a
piece
of
clay
and
the
manager,
project
it....
The
with
playing
guy
in
the
trench, really
has
a
lot
of
fun
to
stick
my
that
I like
It's
something
there.
nose in, but I shouldn't all the time, and can't
if I'm doing my job.
Alan may find that this "love" keeps him too involved in project
details.
"Teaching and Letting Others Become the Experts" - Rudy clearly
wanted to develop the professional skills of his staff members: "I
hope they all become better than me, because that's what it's all
about." Rudy spoke of Alan's predecessor:
I
felt
terrible
about
him
leaving.
But
then I also felt good.
I was
proud
of myself
that
I was
able
to
take
this
guy
who
was
I
and bring him
along....
somewhat
of a novice
like to think of myself as a trainer of people.
I find it somewhat challenging.
In discussing tasks which he felt he should do himself and not
delegate, Rudy mentioned the sale of a building in Diamond's
portfolio.
"I made the decision after talking to the rest of the
staff here.
I think most everyone concurred that we should sell
it." Rudy would personally inform tenants and limited partners.
"I
think they should hear the news from the president of the company
and not from anybody else."
Rudy felt restricted in his ability to delegate because of the
accountability to his business associates which he felt lay solely
with him.
"I have the ultimate responsibility for everything and
everyone that works for this company.
Any individual working for
this company who goes out and does something, it's a reflection on
me and the company." He sees costs incurred here only by delegating
these tasks:
page 81
I
think
it
would
not
speak
well
of
me
or
speak well of the company to have somebody other
than the president be the bearer of those kinds
get involved
decision to
was
my
It
of things.
Therefore it
place.
in the project in the first
is my responsibility to get us out of it.
This responsibility concept could create an unending loop which
would prevent his staff from gaining full authority and becoming
expert in certain areas.
Alan pointed out earlier that the firm
would not grow beyond that which Rudy could get involved.
If Rudy
feels responsible for resolving those matters in which he immersed
the company, then all projects will fall under his purview.
"How Important Is It to Do this Job Perfectly?" - Rudy related
his approach to training his employees, which included the idea that
mistakes are a natural outgrowth of the learning process.
I think
it's
important
to
delegate
even
though you may not get perfect results because I
see
it
as
a
teaching
tool.
If
you
don't
the
tasks,
certain responsibilities and
delegate
subordinates
will never
learn
them.
The
only
way
they're
ever
going
to
learn
how
to
do
and do it
themselves.
something is
to get out
You
have
to
be
willing
to
accept
sometimes
results
that
aren't
quite
what
you think
you
would have achieved.
But hopefully that doesn't
happen all the time.
But Rudy retreated from his position when questioned about the
quality that might result from delegated work.
I'd
rather
have [the
mistakes
committed)
in-house...
We have a reputation
as a company
of
performing
quality work, and I won't
accept
work.
I
would
never
anything
but
quality
delegate a project to somebody entirely where I
run the risk of them doing a less-than-quality
job. There are many degrees of delegating.
He spoke of "holding the hand" of a project manager "to make
sure he doesn't really stub his toe".
He felt it
was his job as
president to keep communication lines open so that a subordinate
page 82
could ask for direction.
He rationalized his style of staving close
to as task, despite delegating the responsibility for it: "I don't
know what ... letting someone swing out there in the breeze ...
achieves.
It certainly doesn't achieve the objectives of the
company."
Alan added that "once we go for a project, it's got to be done
perfectly.
And that's why we're a small company."
"Running a Business or Building an Organization" - Rudy claimed
that he was building an organization, rather than running a
business.
He said,
the
a lot
of
grown,
the
organization has
As
been
business
has
of
the
day-to-day
running
to grow the
My responsibility is
delegated out.
company, and the only way you can grow a company
[I
the
organization....
building
is
through
...
but
bodies
adding
mean
necessarily
don't)
or
have,
you
the
people
training
either
the
Usually
have....
people
you
the
improving
the
selected because of
projects I select are
capabilities of the staff.
Analysis
The delegation profile developed from the questionnaire in
Appendix A2 is as follows:
DELEGATION PROFILE
THE DIAMOND GROUP
Rudy, Alan, and Stu
Number of questions about delegation
that the supervisor and subordinate*:
Disagreed and
supervisor
felt he was a
Agreed
Supervisor is a:
Good delegator
Bad delegator
Total
Total
33
1
37
7
2
9
-0
page 83
6
16
*Note: This profile averages the two subordinates, Alan and
Stu.
This delegation profile reflects a very high degree of
delegation, and a very high degree of agreement between supervisor
and subordinate.
Alan and Stu both agreed with Rudy that Rudy is a
good delegator 33 times out of 16 -questions.
agreement on over 72%. of the
The small number of disagreements (six) renders analysis
of their distribution meaningless.
The high score for total
agreement indicates that there is a clear understanding of Rudy's
style.
His style is that of a strong delegator.
However, we then compare the delegation profile above to the
profile painted in the previous sections.
Rudy is not exhibiting
"textbook" celegation, yet interestingly Alan and Stu, as well as
Rudy, believe that he is.
Rudy is very good about delegating
responsibility, but not authority.
He defines delegation as input
from subordinates, but he makes all the key decisions:
I run
a very
open
situation.
I
reserve
if
we
the right to make all the decisions, but
I'm
action
that
point of
a particular
discuss
table
around
the
and somebody
to take,
going
thinks it's the wrong one, I want them to speak
up about it.
They may not sway me or change my
I
voice
that.
them
to
but
I
want
mind,
you
that.
What
I look
for
that.
appreciate
don't want is a lot of yes-men.
Both Alan and Stu are very comfortable with the authority and
freedom they have been granted, as indicated by the high scores they
gave Rudy in the survey for his use of delegation.
Apparently,
there is a misperception across the board as to what delegation
really is.
As long as it
is across the board, however, the group
appears to work in harmony.
Therefore, caution must be used when
page 81
interpreting the delegation profile.
Also, Rudy had difficulty answering survey questions relating
to his influence on his subordinates' work methods.
delegating details (Appendix
Al, #37),
Questions on
improving on their work
(#22), and forcing things to be done his way (#28 and #6)
unrecordable "it
depends".
all drew
These questions forced him to consider
his approach, and perhaps their omission from the delegation
profiles paints a rosier picture than truly exists.
The growth plans for The Diamond Group are modest.
learned the art of patience in his 15 years with the firm.
management
Rudy has
His
style seems to work for him: quality is maintained, and
subordinates are developed in a comfortable work environment.
Rudy's goals are satisfied.
One doubts, however, that the current
company structure could adapt to a more rapid growth.
As long as
Rudy needs to stay "hands-on" in all aspects and approvals, the
company will not grow through the use of delegated authority.
page 85
Beachmont Development Company
Beachmont Development Company is a young, aggressive developer
of quality, middle-income housing in the New England area.
The firm
was created less than ten years ago by two business school graduates
who had spent their early years in the financial consulting field.
Their goal in starting a company was to create an asset-based
business which had an annuity, providing them passive income.
They
knew little about real estate or the Boston market when they began.
Since Beachmont's inception, numerous managerial and structural
changes have occurred.
Matt remains as the active owner and manager
of the firm, which has grown to almost one hundred people.
Art
joined the firm two years ago, coming from the construction
industry.
He heads up Beachmont's
Development Division., a group
comprising seven development managers.
Typical of the development
managers, Jerry has been with the firm one year and has no staff
support.
Separate interviews were conducted with Matt, Art, and
Jerry.
Company
Culture
A "corporate culture" statement was devised at the same time as
the name of the firm, at its creation.
Each year, the business plan
is revised, with the "final message" being to "become the preeminent
multi-family developer in New England, and to have a good time
getting there." The firm's founders took on their first
five years ago.
employees
Matt's partner set about to find equity for the
company, while Matt undertook to find deals.
Today, Matt is
devoting his time to dealmaking.
Matt had recently bought out his remaining partners of the firm
page 86
in an effort to "consolidate both the vision and the focus of the
firm to go forward." This effort also included the creation of a
more formal hierarchy and structure which was being created as this
interview took place.
Matt's comments, therefore, reflect what he
envisions the new organization to be, while Art's and Jerry's
comments may reflect their past experiences with Beachmont.
Art related that the partners once asked everyone in the firm
to draw an organization chart of the firm as they saw it.
Submitted
were "about 100 different versions." Art tried to describe the
organizational structure:
In our business structure, we try
to have
We
hierarchy.
a
flat
organization, very little
think we have a lot of self-starters here, a lot
of people who are motivated, and all we [the top
management]
want to do is
direct
people in a
consistent manner.
Matt noted that now "people's job definitions are being clearly
defined.
We used to be a flat organization.
reporting to me.
me.
Three or four people
That's tough when I have 25 people reporting to
They report to other managers now."
Jerry took his turn at describing the daily operation of the
firm.
"The whole firm is sort of, in theory, run on a group
approach, where everything is done, in essence, by committee.
Ultimately, one person leads." He enjoyed the team spirit and
commitment from the top to effect the "have fun" portion of the
business plan:
We
firm
here.
very
open
We're
a
literally spend hundreds of hours discussing the
process, discussing how to go about creating the
the best
best job, the best work environment,
We're very
compensation, the best new offices.
open
about
dealing with
company
problems
and
interpersonal relationships.
page 87
Art took pains to point out his discomfort with the
hierarchical distinction in classical management roles:
I
resent,
in
our
entrepreneurial
firm,
the description of supervisors and subordinates.
of
conflict
with
the
type
It
is
in
direct
over
corporate culture that we have attempted
I don't feel that
the
years to
put together.
I'm his superior.
The way I feel is
that it's a
that
a
couple
of
bumps
flat organization, with
and
committee,
to
the
executive
are
equivalent
With
our
top
have
the
right
of
veto.
we
professionals, everyone's equal.
Company
Goals
Matt divided all entrepreneurial real estate development firms
into two types: the small entrepreneur, and the Beachmont type.
Matt described the leaders of the latter:
they
want
people
decided
that
These
something more than being just an entrepreneur.
someone
They want to be an
organization that
leave
want
to
of, and
they
recognition
takes
their mark.
They have built organizations
that
are
capable
of
achieving greater
things
than
they
are
themselves
capable
of
achieving
by
themselves.
There are about four or five firms
[like us in the Boston area] that people say are
change,
as
major
organizational
going
through
to
doing
being
led
are
the
entrepreneurs
with
and
dealing
visionary,
management,
organizational-type issues.
Matt discussed what it took to establish the current track for
the company:
I'm
which
an organization
structured
I've
is
but
which
with,
comfortable
not
completely
I
But
has
layers.
It
the future.
for
right
for
a
true
are
those
things
all
recognize
growing organization, and I've done it.
The addition of Art to the staff is indicative of the firm's
growth strategy:
The
Board
of
Directors
felt
that
the
errors being committed on the construction staff
page 88
needed to be solved.
They dictated to Matt that
'either you buy the expertise or you develop the
that
Beachmont
is
expertise.
At
the
rate
the
going
to
have
to
buy
growing,
you're
and
his
Art
So
we
bought
expertise.'
construction firm.
The company grew substantially in the last year.
The growth
occurred both in its asset acquisition and in
skills by
gathering
broadening
our
development
Jerry,
who
are
junior-type
people
like
professionals in the development arena, but have
a bigger
picture
of
what
development
means.
They may not have all the skills, but they can
draw upon people like Art, who has
tremendous
sophistication in one of the skills.
"Today I'm building an organization," Matt declared.
ago I was building an asset base.
"A year
Today my total focus is on
building an organization." He reiterated the message of his business
plan:
My
strategy
is
always
focused:
Preeminence
in
the
multifamily
housing
market,
So as long as I have a
and to have a good time.
this
continue
building
going to
good
time,
I'm
And the day I don't, I'm going to
organization.
close this firm down.
He suggested that a fourconstitute preeminence.
or five-fold increase in assets would
Matt described the two constraints to the
growth of Beachmont: lack of capital, and the time of the
principals.
skills
in
of the
broad-based
I hold many
this firm that the staff
wants to learn.
As I
hire more and more experienced
professionals, I
am able to transfer those skills at a more rapid
pace.
As more and more people try to vie for my
time,
my
time
availability
is
spread
so
thin,
that
I can't
transfer
both
the
responsibility
and the knowledge fast enough that the firm can
grow.
Jerry agreed with Matt, but gave a little insight into what
page 89
this "transfer of knowledge" looked like:
than I
Matt
less time with
I spend a lot
One of which is he
would like for two reasons.
Secondly, because of his
doesn't have the time.
my
in
touch
with
If
he
is
not
personality.
project on a day-to-day basis, we run into his
do this and this and
jumping in and saying 'Oh,
process.
the
really
understanding
this'
without
he isn't in touch with the
Whereas, Art, even if
project on a day-to-day basis, doesn't
wield a
club like that.
Jerry compared Beachmont's
entrepreneurial venture to a
high-tech firm.
is
of
our
business
side
The
development
not unlike a high-tech start-up company, where a
very bright person had some good ideas, and put
together a team of people, half of whom could do
We
the job, half of whom could pay for the job.
are growing very, very rapidly, and being very
successful, as many high-tech start-up companies
are.
Matt also discussed the "risk" of moving to become a
"technocratic organizations whose products just happens to be real
estate." Some of these firms, he felt, could just as well be
producing cars.
He worried that pursuing his expected five-fold
increase in volume would run that risk.
Specific Delegated Task
Art conferred with Jerry in choosing a delegated task for this
example.
They agreed to discuss the task of interviewing candidates
to hire as a development manager for a new territory.
The task was
too large to be handled personally by Art in a reasonably short
time.
Art made the assignment to Jerry, who he personally had hired
as a development manager the year before.
Art felt that Jerry knew
what the job entailed, perhaps better than he did himself, according
to both Art and Jerry.
Art mentioned the one-year relationship they
page 90
had had, as well as the line of authority in
assignment.
place to facilitate the
Jerry described this feeling of trust.
"If
we didn't
have the relationship we have, he might not have felt that he could
have sort of come in and say, 'I really need you to take this, can
you do it
for me?"' Both parties mentioned the trust factor.
Instruction and Shaping the Task - Art and Jerry concurred on
the way the assignment was broached: "If you have the time, can you
do me a favor?" The instruction was simple: Jerry was to go through
a stack of resumes, pick out and interview the candidates he thought
were good, and run the best ones by Art.
Monitoring - Both Art and Jerry agreed that no monitoring was
necessary, nor was formal monitoring provided.
trust him.
He does a good job.
Art commented: "I
I believe he knows what I want."
Jerry said that typically, "for any delegating there is no
predetermined monitoring." Jerry did note that "I initiated Cany
feedback to Art on the progress], yet if
would have forced it
it
hadn't been there, Art
to happen, by saying, 'Could I have some
feedback on the people you're looking at?"'
Feedback - Both parties also agreed that feedback was neither
offered nor was it
necessary.
Art stated that "we're results
oriented," implying that the results of the job search would speak
for themselves.
Jerry noted that this was not the usual way at
Beachmont.
On
other projects there
is
a tremendous
On things where there are
amount of feedback.
management
and deadlines,
goals,
preestablished
is
very good across the board at sitting down
and
going
over what
has
happened,
and
giving
praise where it's due.
Results - No satisfactory candidates for the position were
page 91
Both Art and Jerry agreed that the pool of candidates with
found.
the requisite skills was sparse.
finding anyone.
There was no "blame"
for not
Art described Jerry's overall competence as
excellent, and noted that this delegation was typical of Art's
style.
Supervisor's Adoption of the Managerial Role
The following sections present information about the manager
and his attitude towards and comfort with his managerial
responsibilities.
The headings in this section are abbreviated
forms of the quotations read to the subjects.
The subjects'
comments may not have been in direct response to the quotation under
which it
is presented, but rather gathered during the course of the
interviews.
"The New,
Uncomfortable Job and Art of Leadership" - Matt
summarized the real estate development industry as a great place for
people who aren't good managers:
such
a
large net
worth,
You can
control
and such a large capital base, with such a few
Why do you have to become a
number of people.
professional organization?
Why do you have
to
become a professional manager?
You don't.
You
can
obtain
all
that people
perceive
that
the
entrepreneur
is
seeking,
which
is
some
great
wealth
or reward,
in
a
very short
period
of
time.
You
can do
this
with
large amounts
of
capital, with few number of people.
If they can
do
that,
they
don't
have
to
be
very
good
managers.
Matt described his own transition, saying "it
it
had to happen, and
had to happen quickly." Jerry felt that Matt has taken a true
leadership role in the firm:
It's
at
a
point at
which
Matt
does
not
really control the process now.
He oversees it,
he
directs it,
he does
not
control
it.
The
page 92
process
is
controlled
one
level
under
that,
leader
should
The
spiritual
the board.
across
all
the
just
be
out
there
overseeing
really
giving
up all the people, and
projects, charging
them ideas that they can then carry out or work
with.
Art used to work in the construction industry, "where you
delegate similar to the military: Do this." He describes his career
as a developer, which is "a higher caliber professional, where
delegation, in our atmosphere and corporate culture that we're
trying to encourage, is one of discussion and teamwork." He
contrasted the two fields:
to
business you have
In the
construction
little
a
lot and demand.
This leaves
threaten
cevelopment
In
thinking.
expressive
for
room
you don't control the atmosphere that you're in
have
to
react
to
outside
as
much
as
you
influences.
Art described his own transition to the development environment
as "conscious, difficult, frustrating, parts were natural." Does he
think he succeeded?
"I think I want to do better."
Matt described the transition to leadership that he had made,
and discussed the onus that he put on his managers
to do the same.
The type of people that I think you hire
are not those you look to
as an entrepreneur
I brought
The people
as an organization.
hire
in
an
managers
specialists, can they be
in
as
looking
to
have
a
organization which
is
now
has
The
entrepreneur
management organization?
[of
the
getting
out
said,
'I'm
already
that
the
message
I'm going to create
details]'.
the managers are going to implement.
Art discussed his discomfort with the leadership role,
referring instead to the team approach to problem solving.
Delegation,
to me,
is
more
geared
towards
the structured organization, where it
comes from
top down.
In my position, I don't
delegate the
the development;
specific tasks.
I say, 'Here's
page 93
what do we have to do to get from point A to
I
Maybe you can call that delegation;
point C?'
call it working together.
Art showed another misinterpretation about true delegation.
When negotiating with people, it
sometimes helps to give the
impression that final authority does not lie with the negotiator.
Art explained his use of this tactic:
It's
important
to
have
someone
you
can
parties].
dealing
with
outside
delegate to [when
doesn't
like
the
Because
if
the
[subordinate]
always
going,
he
can
way the negotiations are
not
there.
The
final
defer
to me,
and
I'm
[want
to
if
we
don't
not
there,
authority is
accept the offer on the table].
This technique is useful in negotiations.
However, it
does not
constitute the delegation of authority, because authority is
specifically withheld from the subordinate.
The same strategy can
be bluffed, where the subordinate does in fact have the authority
and doesn't need to check back for approval but pretends that he
does not have to.
This delivers the same effect but does not get
the manager involved.
Art's use of the subordinate as a buffer does
not represent the use of delegation.
"Surrendering the Greatest Pleasures of my Professional Life
Art touched on the issue of surrendering the duties and
responsibilities which he enjoyed, in favor of management tasks.
are
a
There
behind that I miss
to
stay
I wanted
there, in
that job.
those things that I
me to get to the next
I left
that
lot
of
things
Nevertheless, if
very much.
have
stayed
there
I would
It's necessary to
delegate
used to enjoy, in order for
rung on the ladder.
Matt admitted that he had a problem surrendering his greatest
business pleasure, which is dealmaking.
delegation: "I transfer it
He found one solace in this
to people that I see enjoy it
page 91
as much as
-
I do." He felt that he was frequently asked to choose between being
the company's dealmaker or its visionary, and wrestled with which
duty to delegate.
I
think
in
real
estate
you're
always
balance
entrepreneurial.
So to a
degree I can
those somewhat.
More and more I find I have to
give up the dealmaking, and move into being the
visionary
and letting someone
else
execute
the
visions.
He spoke of the recent restructuring as having to make a
transition.
"We're either going to be a professional institution,
or we're going to suffer remaining a small firm for the rest of our
lives." He viewed delegation as a means to achieve the former, even
if
meant forgoing the specialist activities which one most
it
enjoyed.
He clearly sees the agenda for one's work day being dictated by
corporate necessity, rather than by what one had grown accustomed
to.
For himself, his role has been thought out and implemented.
The overriding concern is that each of us
do the best job we can.
My best job is to be a
visionary,
which
everybody
tells
me
I
am.
I
that,
as
spend
my
time
doing
might
as well
opposed to spending my time buying an apartment
house, where I add less value to my life and to
others'.
Thus, the economics of what one is most efficient in performing
For Matt, it
dictates how one spends the day.
meant forgoing the
dealmaking activities.
"Teaching and Letting Others Become
the Experts" - Art ventured
that "one of my objectives is to train someone to take my job.
I
want someone to be able to take my job." This feeling was echoed by
Matt:
I
think
it's
only
a
matter
page 95
of
time
after
I delegate skills that the person learn them as
not better, because they
well as I do them, if
generalist
a
I'm
focused professionals.
become
anything
does
generalist
think a
I don't
now.
a
were
you
If
specialist.
a
as
well
as
months
six
you
gave
I
if
and
here,
dealmaker
totally focused as a dealmaker
where you were
and I was doing dealmaking part-time, you'd have
I
that
dealmaker
a
of
idiosyncrasies
the
all
things I
learn some
You may also
have.
might
months,
six
last
in the
about
thought
haven't
By the
because the market is forever changing.
end of the year you could probably do it as well
as I can do it.
Team spirit and support was evident at Beachmont.
Matt
explained that there was no peer competitiveness or jealousy.
internal
[eliminate
can
I
faster
The
will
firm
our
competitive
more
the
competition],
with
competitive
be
to
hard
very
It's
be.
you're supposed to have as one of
someone if
your two most important statements of strategy,
say
to
hard
very
It's
Time'.
a Good
'Having
if
you'
with
not going to share everything
'I'm
to
want
I
If
time.
have a good
going to
I'm
have a good time and you want to have a good
to give it
time, you want to learn and I want
objective
up, because that's the most important
something
into
up and get
for me is to give it
new.
Matt addressed the issue of "cubbyholing" information:
estate
real
most
why
usually
That's
or
entrepreneur
an
entrepreneurs get stuck being
want
don't
they
Because
organization.
small
a
They're
angle.
competitive
that
up
give
to
happy
I'm
not.
I'm
attached to what they know.
to transfer it.
He said that Beachmont was having a hard time finding people who
could be externally competitive but did not mind sharing their
special skills with colleagues.
Matt felt that most people wanted
to be "one better" than the next guy, and make it
tougher for the
next guy to get ahead.
[Competitiveness
ahead.
get
have to
is)
But
a
I'm
to
skill
great
happy having
not
page 96
I want those people to say
those people here.
'I want to get ahead, but not at your expense.
I want you and me to get ahead simultaneously.'
Those are very unique people to find.
Jerry offered this description of Matt's ability to let go of
the details of the development work.
[leaving
at
better
much
getting
He's
building
a
to
go
would
He
others].
to
details
and
green
painting
finished
just
had
they
that
it
And
Blue.'
green.
like
don't
I
'No,
say,
the
cost
would
it
and
blue,
painted
get
would
Now, he's getting much
or $30,000.
company $15
people in the ranks
the
and
that,
about
better
they don't go 'Yes,
now
that
so
changed
have
of your mind?' He's
out
your
'Are
go
they
sir';
that he can have
...
now
see
to
beginning
really
Like having
picture.
bigger
the
on
effect
more
'I've
saying,
and
input
his
giving
and
a meeting
try
Let's
them.
like
really
I
units,
seen these
of
kind
this
out
work
to
architect
the
get
to
and the
'You
To hell with the details.
scheme.'
it.'
do
to
how
out
figure
have to
architect
Matt spends a lot
should be.
That's the way it
time out there talking to people about what
of
very
That's
financed.
gets
what
and
sells
in
him
want
don't
we
but
information,
valuable
detail
to
trying
and
pen
a little
with
there
doesn't
just
because he
exactly how to do it
He has a tremendously firm grasp on the
know.
industry, but there is someone in this firm who
knows more about any particular area that Matt
does.
How
Important
Is It to Do This Job Perfectly?" - Matt claimed
that "mess-ups" didn't bother him.
"Everybody makes mistakes in
life, and I'm happy to understand that.
Making mistakes is not
problem for us." Art's feelings on the issue of perfection mirrored
Matt's: "We all live with sacrifices.
Part of the business is
giving up, negotiating, and melding the final product." Matt spoke
at length about this issue in making the transition from
entrepreneur to professional organization.
For
toughest
Beachmont,
I think
one.
that's
people
page 97
the
probably
things
do
can
perfectly.
But
as you
go through
growth
and
transition, you have to give up a lot; you have
to give
up
some
attention
to
detail
and
to
But as you obtain more capital, [as
perfection.
Beachmont has], you can go back and get more
people
executing smaller
number
of
functions.
You can get back to detail again.
For the individual entrepreneur, Matt feels that the transition
is similar.
He stretches himself to learn new skills, and the
quality of his output suffers.
As he develops sufficient cash flow
to hire specialists to do his tasks, perfection is possible again.
Matt feels that if
the objective of the entrepreneur is to grow his
firm, and go through these transitional stages, he must accept the
swings
in quality.
Art
had a similar philosophy:
! let
him mess it
up
once;
it's
all
part
of learning.
Someone let me mess up.
I always
say
to people,
'If
I have
to
do
your
job,
I
don't
need you.
So learn your
job.' It's that
simple.
If
you don't know, ask me and
I'll tell
you....
I don't want a clone of
myself,
I want
free-thinking
people.
But
don't
make
the
same
mistake twice.
"Running a Business or Building an Organization" - Art
discussed his philosophy on the question of building an
organization.
In order
for me to run my business, the
organization has to be in
place to accept and
to
have
the
the
load.
So
you
have
direct
organization
prepared
to accept
the
challenge,
before
you go out
and find the challenge and
In
that....
around
the organization
then build
order for us to accomplish our goals of creating
net worth through real estate, you have to have
the organization in place.
He envisions a four-fold increase in staff in three years.
I don't
think delegation
can
be
isolated,
because you have to delegate to someone who is
going to pursue or do towards a common goal what
you
expect....
If
I could
delegate
to
myself
all day long the tasks that I know I'm good at,
page 98
no
going
treadmill
on
a
be
to
I'm
going
who
people
find
to
The
opportunity
place....
what I
who complement
than I know,
know more
know very well, can only strengthen what we do.
Just to delegate could put me in the ruins in a
I could delegate to
very short period of time.
the wrong people, or the people could screw up
delegate
to
I
want
it.
knowing
me
without
[development] to a professional who has all the
tools to get a project done.
Jerry agreed with Art: "We're building an organization.
Everything is futures here.
All we talk about is five years away."
"It's important to have someone you can delegate to [when
dealing with outside parties].
Because if
they don't like the way
things are going they can always defer to myself, who's not there.
The final word is not there, if
we don't like what they give us."
Art discussed the importance of finding the right people for
the organization, and entrusting them to use their skills:
to find people who care, who have
We try
some desire to
some
vested interest, who have
We create
share or be part of a common goal.
in-house excitement that goes up and down [the
that
word
is
a
Delegation
organization].
denotes a one-way direction.
For our business,
to
be
has
there
successful business,
and
a
two-way communication.
We promote not up-down,
I
will
Nevertheless,
laterally.
sideways,
but
listen to one of the gardeners who has a better
idea about how to take care of the building than
to feel
I want them
I do, because he's there.
both
are open
that the lines of communication
a
perspective,
from
my
is,
Delegation
ways.
it
says:
because
term,
little bit of a negative
task.
your
Here's
I'm
delegating.
'Do
this.
of the smart
Instead, I'd like to think
Do it.'
people
the
intelligence,
with
the
people
people,
If
they screw
we just open opportunities to...
be
this
should
say,
'Well,
I think it
up,
they
I
tells
me.'
my
gut
that's what
way,
because
so I say,
'You're
maybe
a
stronger
gut
have
wrong, do it
this way because I don't agree with
why
I don't
you, and I'll tell you five reasons
to
I still reserve the option
agree with you...
And I also reserve the option to say,
veto ...
and
go
out
that,
think
really
you
if
'Well,
page 99
prove it.' So, delegation is not a great
our company; I think it's
communication,
down, left and right, all over the place.
word in
up
and
Analysis
The delegation profile developed from the questionnaire in
Appendix A2 is as follows:
DELEGATION PROFILE
BEACHMONT DEVELOPMENT
Art and Jerry
COMPANY
Number of questions about delegation
that the supervisor and subordinate:
Agreed
Disagreed and
the supervisor
felt he was a:
Total
Supervisor is a:
Good delegator
26
Bad delegator
10
3
13
36
7
13
Total
30
This profile shows a fairly strong orientation towards good
delegation.
It also demonstrates a high degree of consensus as to
Art's style of delegation.
The low total of 7 for disagreement,
which was even split between good and bad delegation, is a result of
the open communication at Beachmont.
The "hundreds of hours" spent
discussing the work environment paid off in consistency and unity of
thought.
There were, however, ten questions where Art and Jerry agreed
that Art was a bad delegator.
style favoring teamwork.
The responses signal a management
The questions included assigning jobs both
above and below the subordinate's abilities (#17
unrealistic deadlines (#21)
and #18),
giving
and improving on what they do (#22), and
page 100
not clearly defining their authority in writing (#12
and
43).
These responses indicate that Art truly rejects the notion of
hierarchy that these questions imply exists.
The questions were
designed to identify traits in managers which indicate good
delegation practices.
responsibility.
Jerry in no way lacked authority or
The dedication that he and other staffers had to
the job was evident.
The team concept was used at Beachmont to
teach, motivate, and extract quality work from the staff.
Delegation is seen as having some very different attributes than
teamwork, or participative decision making.
The team system worked
well under Art.
Although both Art and Jerry see the organizational structure as
very flat, Matt has other ideas.
The recent growth has expanded the
staff to the point that Matt has instituted a level of middle
management.
Job definitions are being written.
The "group
approach" of which Jerry speaks may soon be replaced by hierarchical
decision making.
will it
The teamwork concept worked in the small firm;
yield to delegated authority in the expanded version?
As Matt focuses his activities on bringing the company to its
stated goal of being the preeminent developer in its market niche,
he is growing the staff and changing its structure.
of his is whether or not it
A key concern
will remain entrepreneurial.
Matt shed some interesting light on the definition of
entrepreneurship.
He detailed the problems and thought processes of
the leader as he takes his company through stages of business growth
similar to Churchill and Lewis (1983).
He identified the
transitions between the phases, where entrepreneurship ends and what
page 101
Matt calls a "professional organization" begins.
The authors
explain that the owner's need to delegate varies across the phases,
and Matt identified how he responded to those needs by delegating
away his detailed development activities.
He intends, in addition, to take his employees through the same
transitions.
Art was a good construction specialist, and is now a
strong delegator in his role as manager.
Art is learning to
delegate through Matt's insistence; his job depends on his ability
to bring good people into the company.
Jerry is the new specialist.
He is learning teamwork, but not delegation.
Matt's technique is to
let the bottom rung people be specialists until it
promote them.
is time to
The the exigencies of goal-striving force them to
learn the managerial role, including delegation.
It has worked so
far.
Matt clearly has visions bigger that just development.
The
annual revision of the business plan will reflect this, and the
corporate goals and strategies for Beachmont will evolve while Matt
is at the helm.
This entrepreneur
is like the computer whiz.
His
effective delegation is a product of his desire to achieve his
goals.
Having the goals thought out and formalized in a business
plan certainly help to focus his actions towards these goals.
Two other points deserve attention here.
Beachmont's goal of "having fun".
The first
is
If this is interpreted to mean
professional learning and growth, this can be accomplished through
good delegation practices, as well as through teamwork.
Either
management technique would provide the subordinate the experiences
to satisfy these needs.
However, the delegator is faced with
page 102
"having to surrender the greatest pleasures of my professional
life".
How does one compensate for these pleasures?
Matt does it
through accepting even greater challenges, and by delegating to
those he thinks enjoy the tasks as much as he did.
The second point is the ease with which Art delegates
development tasks.
Art only had construction experience and is not
fully facile in all aspects of development.
It
may be easy for him
to delegate because he truly believes that others know more that he
does in those areas.
page 103
CHAPTER
5
ANALYSIS
The four firms chosen for field research spanned a range of
business strategies as well as delegation practices.
firms were real estate development companies,
locality,
size,
product mix,
tenure,
Although all
they differed in
growth strategy,
structure , and staff organization.
management
The inability to control for all
but one or two of these criteria makes it
impossible to prove or
This chapter,
disprove theories about delegation.
describes themes found among the firms; it
therefore,
compares and contrasts
actual practice with the theory in the literature; and it
rationale for the behavior identified.
Most of all,
it
provides
provides a
framework to which a real estate development entrepreneur can relate
himself and his firm.
The entrepreneur should use introspection,
and ask himself:
am
I most
like?
Who
in
these
examples
Is
it
going
on
in
my
organization?
What's
work
it
an
enjoyable
Is
successful?
environment?
Would
I
change
anything
in
my
I and
delegation?
And
finally, should
style
of
evaluating it
can I change my own
style after
objectively?
Figure 2 presents a graphical representation of the four
companies' delegation profiles.
The profiles were developed from
the responses to the questionnaire in Appendix A 1 , "Are You an
Effective Delegator?" Each graph,
or pie chart,
represents the total
number of valid responses to the questions asked.
The pie is
divided into four sections; each section represents one of the four
categories of responses listed in the delegation profiles.
page
101
Lfl
0
(D
0
r+
(D
:3
'4
S (0
( D
B
CD
CD
(D
-4
:7
0(D
R3
N
r+
L:)r
(D (
00
CL
(1) c
0
,
O)
(D
'4
r+
'4
CD
0
'4 (1)
ci r+ c
J) (D
11
0
Q-3
C D
U>
Lv
-3
0
OD :3
O,
0O(D
G) >
0>
3
C)
0~i
(0
0
T
0
r+
(D
~C
Q.
0-
T)
(D CD
)O
EC
'+4
O(4
0
In
o(D
(D :7
C+
i
L
'4
O
0
a
3
0
r+
-3
0
3
~D
-Cl D
0>
OLo
NCD
rD (D
..
0) :3
C+
Lv
0
-3
coR)l
N
CD
L
(0
A
m
0
-v
-v
z
CD
-v
Ln
0
0 1
a
Figure 2 (cont'd)
Delegation Profiles
THE DIAMOND
Agreement:
Bad delegato r
GROUP
"4.
( 15%)
K-K -A
Supervisor felt
that he was a bad
delegator (1%)
greement:
Good delegator
(72%)
44'-
Supervisor felt
that he was a
good delegator
Sx
.-444
-
-
-
-
(9%)
4
-
-4-N
BEACHMONT
~
~4
* 44-4-
%.4
-4
-
.'---
4
DEVELOPMENT
4-
4-'
~~~
4Z444~4
4 4-4
4
~4
---
COMPANY
A
Agreement:
Bad delegator
(23%)
-
-
Agreement:
.. Good delegator
<Ca
-
~-
(60% >
::
-0
*
-
'-4-.-
Supervisor felt
that he was a
bad delegator (7%)
.Supervisor felt
that he was a
good delegator (9%)
K
/
%~~-F
-3SR$7
..
.2'
-
14
Agreement
Disagreement
page
106
The size of the slice indicates the portion of total responses
that each category received.
The two categories showing agreement
between supervisor and subordinate are shaded; the two categories
where the parties disagreed remain unshaded.
results,
To analyze the
let us examine the range of responses.
Agreement between the supervisor and subordinate on good
delegation practices runs from a low of
a high which doubles that,
35% at The Cross Company to
at The Diamond Group.
or 72%,
Agreement
on bad delegation practices at the same two firms runs converse,
diminishing by half from 31% to 15%.
practices,
good or bad,
Total agreement on delegation
ran from a low of
67% at Cross to a high of
87% at Diamond.
Disagreement responses were usually evenly divided between the
two categories,
except at The Cross Company,
where Will's responses
indicated that he believes that he is a much better delegator than
his subordinates do.
(Reasons
for this are given in Chapter
1.)
Cases where the supervisor felt that he was a better delegator than
his subordinate ranged from 9% at both Diamond and Beachmont to 27%
at Cross,
as mentioned above.
Cases where the subordinate felt that
the superior was a better delegator than he gave himself credit for
ranged from
.1y%at Diamond to
11% at Anthem.
The data collected from the entirety of the subjects will now
be analyzed,
without regard to company affiliation.
Are there
trends and consistencies within the development field?
The two
quantitative surveys provide the basis of this analysis.
Seventeen of the 52 questions from Appendix A2,
or one-third,
were "motherhood" questions: "My employees are self-starters";
page
107
frequently give me good suggestions"; and "Do I reward
"Employees
based on results?" These
85%.
That is,
17 received a total vote majority of over
of the potential ten respondents,
Results in this category were
respondent dissented from the rest.
votes of
10-to-C,
9-to-O,
zero or only one
9-to-1 , 8-to-C,
and 8-to-1 .
These
responses provided little insight into the delegation process.
(Two
exceptions are noted below .)
The remaining 35 questions,
or two-thirds,
were split along
less significant or nonexistent majorities such as 6-to-4,
or 3-to-7.
These questions,
then,
5-to-5,
provide the opportunity to
For
differentiate among the respondents and their respective firms.
example,
half of the respondents agreed that the manager "assigns
subordinates jobs above their ability and training ." The other half
disagreed .
These differences help create the variety of profiles.
The two questions almost unanimously indicating bad delegation
practices help characterize the real estate development industry .
The entrepreneur's "intensity" of which du Toit ( 1985)
Chapter
2) , is truly evident here.
"Have I skipped any vacations in
the last five years?" yielded a unanimous "yes" (The
question,
following
"Do I work longer hours than those reporting to me?"
yielded an 8-to-2 "yes" majority.
criterion,
spoke (see
This does not meet the 85%
but is significant nevertheless.)
The other question,
"Do
[subordinates] questions to me involve details rather than [or as
frequently as] policies?" received a 9-to-1 majority "yes" vote.
What do these responses say about the development industry?
be the manager's desire to stay close to the work; it
the subordinates require detailed assistance; or it
page
108
It
may be that
may just be the
may
nature of the development 'beast'.
from Appendix A3,
The results of the questionnaire
"Possible Reasons for Minimal Delegation ," help
answer that question.
Eight respondents to the survey gave scores for each of the
questions on a scale of 1 to 5.
all respondents,
of the
15
Average scores were calculated for
The order
regardless of their company affiliation.
15 questions listed below has changed from the order that
they were asked.
They have been relisted in the order of their
average scores , from those scoring closest to "very accurate" (1 .0)
to those closest to "inaccurate" (5.0) .
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR MINIMAL DELEGATION
Average
Rank
Score
WHY SUPERVISOR'S DON'T DELEGATE
3.3
1 (tie)
H/'s is fearful of costly mistakes being
made.
3.3
1 (tie)
H/s would rather firefight than set up
systems that enable them to manage .
3.6
He/She (H/s) feels that they can do the
work faster.
H/s believes that only h/s is capable of
doing the job.
6 (tie)
H's feels that control of feedback
mechanisms are too weak to correct
mistakes as they happen.
d,I
H/s is unable to communicate what needs
to be done due to lack of
information .
1 .1i
H/s is confused about proper lines of
authority and correct
accountability.
page
. 11I
.
6 (tie)
10
11 (tie)
109
H/s feels h/s shouldn't delegate
anything that h/s wouldn't or
couldn't do themself.
1 1 (tie)
1.5
11 (tie)
1.5
Feeling of job insecurity.
WHY SUBORDINATES RESIST DELEGATION
H/s is not sure of h/s own level of
authority or even who h/s supervisor
is.
3.1
3
H/s feels h/s hasn't received the
proper information to handle the
work.
3.6
1
1.1
6
1.3
9
4.7
11
14. 8
15
H/s doublechecks every decision with
the supervisor before implementing
it.
H/s is not prepared to accept
responsibility.
It's easier to let the supervisor make
the decisions.
H/s is not convinced h/s can gain
anything by accepting
responsibility.
The first
thing one notices is that all scores are very high,
indicating general "inaccuracy" of the question in describing
attitudes at the four firms.
the scale median of 3. 0.
Even the lowest score of 3. 3 is above
This indicates that the "textbook" reasons
for explaining the lack of delegation do not apply to the four
development firms.
This is noteworthy,
the accuracy of 'self -examination'-type
and leads to one to question
questionnaires.
"Textbook"
delegation practices are not found to be used in the four subject
firms.
Researchers have examined companies and determined reasons
why delegation is not used,
but the study here finds that these
reasons do not explain the behavior found.
identify the problems,
Perhaps the subjects can
but cannot explain why they occur.
page
110
Limited
analysis of the responses to this questionnaire are included here.
The remaining analysis in this section should help explain other
reasons for the limited use of delegation employed at the four
firms .
The clustering of scores about the high end makes
interpretation of small differences between scores subject to
caution.
some messages do seem clear.
However,
The top two reasons
why these supervisors do not delegate are consistent with the top
reasons given in the literature,
during the interviews.
and also with the comments made
These reasons relate directly to concerns
about the quality of the work being performed , and not to a
manager's personality traits such as job insecurity or perception of
their own roles.
(1986),
This is consistent with the results of Leana
who found that "supervisors' characteristics contributed
little to explaining variance in levels of delegation ."
On the other hand,
766).
(p.
quality of
from the subordinates' perspective,
work issues are not prevalent.
Instead,
the uncertainty about the
level of authority question heads the list of reasons to resist
delegation .
This ranking is due primarily to the low responses
given by all three members of The Cross Company staff
.
The firm has
a major problem with its internal perceptions of delegated
authority; no one there seems to know what level of authority the
subordinates have been granted .
"Not receiving the proper information" ranks as the second most
This again can be tied to
accurate reason for resisting delegation.
the risky nature of development , where actions based on incomplete
information are the norm.
At the bottom of the list are the reasons
page
111
Thus,
dealing with the subordinates' acceptance of responsibility.
whereas the literature describes business environments that include
more menial and mechanical tasks , the development industry,
at the level interviewed,
at least
consists of people who are aggressive and
want to move ahead by accepting increased responsibility.
The following discussion reviews the categories established in
the last chapter for consistencies and discrepancies among the
surveyed firms.
Company Culture
Most of the subjects denied the existence of a hierarchy within
their firms.
They spoke frequently about teamwork,
instead.
Teamwork was most lacking at Anthem Properties; differences in age
Herb
and professional background may have contributed to that.
spoke of teamwork,
but it
cheerleader analogy,
a team to be exulted.
was not observed.
but to carry it
Curt developed the
through implies the presence of
This team was not found.
The management
style that he espoused did not include delegating authority.
Hierarchy seems to affect delegation in an unexpected way.
Art,
at Beachmont,
subordinate input for delegation.
Diamond,
and mistakes
denies the existence of a hierarchy,
A strong hierarchy exists at
where Rudy mistakes accountability for delegated authority.
He commented,
"It was my decision to get involved
is my responsibility to get us out".
supplied definitions in Chapter
...
Gardner and Davis
therefore it
(1965)
2 of this thesis which help explain
how Rudy could delegate authority so that others could act in his
behalf , while still maintaining accountability to his firm.
Harrison ( 1961)
sheds further light on Rudy's confusion:
page
112
unlimited
either
of
delegation
the
...
Is
personal
of
matter
or limited authority merely a
the
to
...
answer
decisive
The
choice?...
one
is
delegation
of
meaning
the
confusion over
An executive can delegate
word: accountabijity.
means
no
by
act
this
But
...
responsibility
accountability
own
his
of
measure
diminishes the
The executive himself,
to his own superiors.
full
his subordinate, possesses the
not
102)
(p.
obligation.
Rudy will always be accountable for both his and his
Thus,
subordinates' actions.
He simply is not demonstrating enough trust
in his subordinate's work to feel comfortable being accountable for
it.
Rudy could employ proper monitoring of delegated tasks to help
ensure the quality of his subordinates' performance.
The degree of openness of management varied considerably.
Firms which discussed management issues,
strong delegation profile.
had a
such as Beachmont,
Individuals at The Cross Company,
in
contrast , were concerned about the confidentiality of their
comments,
and developed weak delegation profiles.
Individuals at each of the four firms compared an
entrepreneurial developer to a high-tech start-up firm.
The
comparison of the real estate visionary to Steven Jobs,
Ken Olsen,
Mitch Kapor,
motivation.
or An Wang led to discussions of the entrepreneur's
Delegation was seen as necessary for each of these
individuals to build his company.
reached Churchill and Lewis'
What happened when the firm
(1983)
Stage IV,
Take-off?
They
state :
Often the entrepreneur who founded the company
to the Success Stage is replaced
and brought it
the
by
involuntarily
or
voluntarily
either
10)
(p.
company's investors or creditors.
high-technology
beset...
problems that
The
companies stem from a mismatch of the founders'
that
demands
the
and
skills
problem-solving
page 113
"forced
evolution"
to
brings
the
(p.
company.
48)
Curt , at Anthem , was "amused
high-tech firms,
and interested" to watch these
but he liked the rewards of "the chase".
sees the chase as being detailed work,
do that at a big firm,
If he
and can not see how one could
why would he delegate to grow the firm?
He
would not.
Company
Goals
The four firms surveyed were split on their plans for growth.
Beachmont and Cross were poised and anxious for rapid growth,
while
Anthem and Diamond were more patient with their existing projects.
These goals for expansions are found to be related to the choice of
and success of delegation styles used by the managers.
remains whether the goals dictate management style,
The question
or vice versa.
Beachmont is positioned for growth perhaps beyond the realm of
entrepreneurship; they made constant reference to the business
plans.
Cross is poised for desertion or mutiny if
not reconciled with his ambitions.
management
outlook .
Will's style is
On the other front,
Anthem's
style is well suited for its small-scale development
The goal choice and management style choice seem
intertwined; they are logical extensions of each other .
seems comfortable with this combination,
Management
while subordinates should
know what to expect to prevent their own frustration.
Rudy's patience may eventually wear thin with his staff
At Diamond,
, but one
cannot say that they were not warned by his delegation practices.
The growth strategy developed by Diamond and its parent firm dictate
the skills that the firm needs to cultivate; Rudy's paternalism is
consistent with the slower growth projections.
page
111
Only Beachmont
employed the tactic of developing the company's
expertise by wholesale acquisition of talent,
demonstrated by
"buying Art ana his construction company ." This line of work was
soon found to be inconsistent with the goals of the company,
and the
construction department was then spun off .
Another curiosity in the data is the associated goal of
developing subordinates.
Rudy,
at Diamond,
espoused the strongest
personal desire to develop the skills of his subordinates.
However,
he was one of the most limiting in his delegation of authority.
Tom,
at The Cross Company,
compared developing subordinates through
the use of delegation to raising children: "You can't do everything
for them all the time ." Perhaps Rudy is trying too hard to "develop
his subordinates",
well-meaning parent.
and has actually become a meddling but
McConkey
points out that two
( 197-)
requirements must be met for the development of a subordinate's
skills :
1.
opportunity
the
provide
superior must
The
for development to take place and provide
taking place.
an atmosphere conducive to it
2.
The subordinate must accept strict
competent
and
willing
be
accountability and
to stand on his own two feet in carrying
182)
(p.
out his accountability .
Perhaps in firms such as Beachmont,
where professional growth is a
by-product of the goal of working efficiently,
a subordinate is
better trained and thus better served.
Specific Delegated Task
The discussion of the specific tasks delegated to the
subordinate gave insight into the manager's modus operandi as well
as his espoused theory.
It gives the opportunity to compare what
page
115
Given the wide range
they believe their style is to how they acted.
of responses and the latitude in choosing tasks , no conclusions can
By breaking
be drawn about the general nature of delegated tasks .
down the delegation into its parts,
we can find strengths and
weaknesses of the subjects.
Instruction - Anthem,
Cross,
and Diamond identified long-term
tasks which were delegated to the subordinate.
Curt,
at Anthem,
did
not delegate the complete creation of the broker party to Steve; it
was participatory , or almost authoritarian , with Curt having final
okays along the way.
was perhaps the best example of proper
meeting on their project,
delegation,
running the public
Will's task for Tom,
This could be because Tom
at least in the early stages.
asked to do the project
--
he asked that it
be delegated to him.
This can be seen as perhaps the ultimate way in which a subordinate
can help "shape the task".
Alan was only Rudy's "pooper-scooper" at
the close-out of their condominium project.
to act on problems.
Alan had no authority
There was little opportunity for instruction.
In almost no case was there agreement on McConkey's
provisions of a delegated assignment:
schedule,
authority granted,
scope,
results to be achieved,
control and feedback,
acceptance of their own duties.
(See
(1971)
Chapter 2).
and both parties
In fact,
one
could say that "textbook" instruction on delegated tasks is
anomalous with developers' instruction.
The "on the job training"
includes virtually no instruction from above.
In "Control,
Contingency and Delegation in Decision-Making ," Michael (1979)
notes
that explaining decision rules to the subordinate when delegating a
task should ease delegation:
page
116
six
-rules
decision
specifying
By
and
standards
objectives, policies, procedures,
decision-making
can delegate
superiors
-rules
when
especially
results,
predictable
highly
with
(p.
their
use.
instructed
in
are
subordinates
38)
In addition to not giving detailed instruction,
subordinates'
help was used infrequently in shaping the task description,
although
supervisors were generally pleased with the creativity subordinates
used in carrying out the tasks.
Approaches ranged from Curt
"inflicting" his ideas on Steve at Anthem,
favor?" approach at Beachmont.
underway,
to Art's "Can you do me a
All four approaches got the task
and eventually completed.
Whether the success of the task
was dependent on the degree of instruction given is discussed under
Results .
Monitoring
-
Monitoring implies the establishment and use of a
system of controls.
Haynes ( 1980)
noted: "Controls provide you with
the opportunity to examine actual performance against standards or
objectives and to undertake whatever corrective action is called
(p.
for ."
12)
Essentially all monitoring was ad hoc and oral.
of the pairs had laid out a system for auditing progress,
None
although
weekly staff meetings were generally understood to be a sufficient
medium.
No standards or objectives were established against which
No one stated a desire for any other system,
to compare progress.
although Tom wished that Will's "list" system at Cross be abolished.
Harrison
(1961)
recognized nine different strategies for
monitoring and maintaining control over delegated tasks.
Participation in tasks,
he claims,
every detail of the job,
on ."
(p .
103)
"is
possible not by supervising
but by periodic audits of what is going
This idea seemed to bypass most of the subjects.
page
117
There were no comments received to the following effect : "I am a
but I can check his
little uneasy in delegating tasks to Jim,
progress at each milestone and get him back on course if
Rudy , at Diamond,
necessary."
was a gung -ho delegator until he realized that he
could suffer consequences of a job poorly done.
Rudy did not
attempt to monitor Alan by putting in place budget guidelines that
Such a
would ensure that Alan's cash expenditures were on target.
control system would enable Rudy to delegate authority while feeling
comfortable wbout his own accountability.
Critique/Feedback
- Most subjects felt that specific feedback
was unnecessary , that the results of the job spoke for the
More critical managers,
performance.
such as Will at Cross,
provided plenty of critique , occasionally positive .
Beachmont's examples of feedback were atypical.
Both Cross and
Tom at Cross said
that there is typically very little feedback , while Jerry at
Beachmont felt that there usually were preestablished goals and
These traits are consistent with their respective
deadlines .
delegation profiles.
The feedback mechanism,
then,
was generally
not considered part of the delegation process except at the
goal-oriented Beachmont Development Company.
Results - All managers were reasonably pleased with the results
of the subordinate's performance on the delegated task.
occurred,
perhaps,
the managers.
established,
benchmarks.
can
by,
This
because of the hands-on approach employed by all
Because no predetermined standards had been
results could not be judged against particular
The Control Cycle that Michael (1979)
risk
to
contribute
in effect, requiring
advocates,
delegation
reduction in
the subordinate to give
page 118
his
strategies,
his
of
preview
a
superior
the
decisions, and
future-oriented
planning or
major
judging the effectiveness
of his standards for
free
is
...
superior
The
strategies....
his
of
detailed
of the burden of constantly monitoring
can
and
subordinate
his
by
making
decisionagainst
results
evaluating
to
himself
limit
standards.
(p.
11)
Thus,
in proper delegation,
the results stage of delegation
Managers
reflects the previous stages; no surprises should occur.
ratings of the four subordinates surveyed in this thesis included
"good" , "very good" , "very competent" , and "excellent" .
All the
managers were at least partly responsible for the subordinate's
hire; there was no opportunity to research the attitude towards
inherited subordinates .
Hiring practices are reviewed at the end of
this chapter .
Supervisor's Adoption of the Managerial Role
The following sections summarize and analyze the comments and
behaviors described in the four case studies .
"The New,
Uncomfortable Job and Art of Leadership" - All
managers admitted difficulty in making the transition to manager.
Curt,
at Anthem,
admitted to being a poor delegator , and would
rather be a "cheerleader".
adopted it
as his own.
He was thrust into the role,
In contrast,
and never
both Matt and Art at Beachmont
made conscious efforts to adopt the manager's functions.
Matt
admitted that real estate was a good place for bad managers to hide ,
but took on the duties himself in order to tackle bigger and bigger
projects.
Art still had trouble with the hierarchy of leadership ,
preferring to work together with his staff.
Will , at Cross,
had no trouble accepting the leadership role.
He was enjoying the challenge of the new role,
page
119
but carried to Cross
the leadership model he had learned and developed in a more
structured environment.
Rudy,
Diamond's president,
developed
confidence in his staff as they consistently made the same decisions
he would have .
Stu felt that Rudy was a good leader .
He felt that
leadership entailed setting goals for the subordinates , but not
working together to develop these goals.
at Cross,
Tom,
related how in real estate,
no one trains
Management skills are self -taught , then , and the both
managers.
teacher and student must be comfortable with the process of
delegation .
This comfort with the delegator's role may come only
through recognition of the importance of delegation to the success
of the manager,
the company,
and the subordinate.
Perrow , in "The Short and Glorious History of Organizational
Theory
,"
(1973)
discusses the concept of "good leadership :
is
organizations
all
in
cry
burning
The
that
learned
have
we
but
leadership,'
for 'good
is
it
adequacy
of
level
threshold
a
beyond
good leadership
extremely difficult to know what
13)
(p.
is.
Perhaps Ken Olsen (1987)
said it
best when he speculated what
his legacy would be when he leaves Digital Equipment , the giant
computer company he started in the proverbial garage :
as
remembered
be
...
to
ambition is
My
them
influenced
who
them,
challenged
who
someone
to be creative and enjoy work and have fun for a
7)
(p.
long time.
"Surrendering the Greatest Pleasures of my Professional Life" Three of the development managers spoke of the difficult surrender
of their detailed work.
Curiously,
Will,
at Cross,
was the one who
expressed boredom with the tasks that he had grown accustomed to: "I
could do the stuff in my sleep ." This led him to found The Cross
page
120
Company.
He said that he enjoyed the challenge,
The Beachmont managers
successful in delegating project specifics.
again found the surrender easier knowing that it
not "personally rewarding",
but that it
was necessary to
said that management was
at Anthem,
Curt,
accomplish certain goals.
but was not very
was "exciting to see a piece
of land , create a new project ." Lower -level managers such as Alan at
Diamond and Tom at Cross also exhibited a commitment and love for
"working in the trenches",
and found it
hard to delegate to the
lowest level.
This attraction for the "bricks and mortar" is typical of the
development industry.
creating a building.
The tangible portion of the business is
Significantly,
the ones most easily
surrendering their pleasures were at Beachmont,
a firm created
solely as a means to create wealth by individuals with no experience
in the development industry.
"Teaching and Letting Others Become
firms surveyed,
the Experts" - In the small
there was a consistent lack of internal competition,
and a strong group ethic.
"Cubbyholing" information was seen as a
bureaucratic technique reserved for the insecure.
was detail-oriented,
expertise .
Even Will,
had no problems with his staff gaining the
There was a strong desire to teach at Diamond.
As usual,
the management
at Beachmont was most eloquent about
the function of training others to become the experts .
Matt felt
that a generalist does not do anything as well as a specialist.
felt that if
who
you can train someone,
in that area,
He
and he spends full time working
that he will soon become more proficient at the task.
As Beachmont grows rapidly,
there is room at the bottom of the
page
121
professional organization for specialists.
In a four-
or
five-person firm such as Cross , however , there is no room for
specialists .
As will be seen in the next section , specialization is
a bureaucratic luxury which most development firms can ill afford .
However , Matt sees the specialist role as a temporary stop : "The
people I brought in as specialists,
can they be managers in and
organization which is now looking to have a management
organization?" He has transitioned himself , and through growth and
delegation would expect others to become managers .
"How Important Is It to Do this Job Perfectly?" - Most managers
agree that an on-the-job training period is necessary,
willing to live with mistakes .
and are
The distinctions between the
attitudes of the four firms are very interesting , however .
The two
firms espousing most strongly the idea that their company puts out a
quality product and that mistakes which may hurt the firm's image
are unacceptable are Anthem and Diamond .
These two firms are the
oldest , have the least orientation to growth , and demonstrate poor
delegation
(when
and authority) .
looking at complete delegation of responsibility
Curt , at Anthem , experienced "continual
frustration" because projects were not always done perfectly,
Herb,
the chairman,
remarked that if
product , they should not do it.
reputation for quality work.
they could not do a top-quality
Rudy spoke of the company's
The longevity of these firms in an
industry filled with younger companies,
market,
while
especially in the Boston
may be a testament to their commitment to quality.
What
bodes for the two younger firms who have not made this commitment?
Beachmont's business plan does not stipulate specifically that
page
122
it
build quality housing,
housing market .
only that it
achieve preeminence in the
One might assume that a reputation for quality is
necessary to attain this lofty stature,
spelled out.
Instead,
but it
is nevertheless not
the business plan calls for "having a good
time" developing housing.
At the Cross Company,
Tom and Tim "know
that every detail doesn't have to be perfect ." Will is becoming
"increasingly comfortable" with an "80-percent
problem,
due to time constraints.
accomplished if
solution" to a
Other projects could be
the minutest details were not attended to.
Is this trade-off between quality and quantity of projects
real,
and is it
necessary?
the use of delegation?
And what effect does the choice have on
McConkey
(197-1)
states:
Effective
delegation
carries
with
it
the
manager
will
be
that
the
individual
promise
given
the
widest possible
latitude
to
determine
his
own
job
and
that
all
managers
in
the
organization,
acting
together
like
this,
will
achieve results considerably in excess of those
a
not
operating
in
realized
by
managers
comparable manner.
(p.
210)
In giving the subordinates the latitude to make decisions,
the
managers must influence the thought processes so that decisions are
made consistent with company policy,
Perrow
(1977),
image,
and reputation.
To
this entails the use of third-order controls:
is
to
delegate:
My message
to managers
you have far
more control than you think....
Only
when
premises
can
be
controlled
that
can
decentralization
of
delegation
extensive
take
place....
The
delegation
of
authority
will
be immense [when] the premises upon which those
(p.
11)
decisions are made [are] secure.
Perrow reserved his first -order
controls , direct orders ,
surveillance , rules and regulations for "low complexity
organizations" (p.
6) .
Second order controls included
page
123
Matt used the latter at
standardization and specialization.
Beachmont in order to delegate and grow his firm: "As you obtain
more capital,
you can go back and hire more people to each execute
small number of functions.
Then you can get back to detail again."
So while Matt used second-order
Beachmont's
detailed work,
controls to maintain the quality of
he used third-order controls at the
managerial level to maintain the company culture.
on this : "We
...
try to find people who care
be part of a common goal.
Art had reflected
who have some desire to
We create in-house excitement .
.
" A
company's philosophy on subjects such as quality can filter through
the organization,
and subordinates' actions can be controlled
towards that end through the use of first-,
second-,
and third-order
controls .
Although most managers surveyed in the present research felt
that hiring the best people was the best insurance against inferior
work , only one understood the mechanisms of control available to
harness the work of any employee.
"Running a Business or Building an Organization" - The question
of running a business or building an organization was a major
determinant in delegation behavior .
The concept that a development
firm was nothing more than a group of portfolio managers ensuring
the profitability of the equity investors' stake was offerred by two
managers , but not by their third-tier staff .
Anthem Properties'
lack of commitment to the organization was apparent:
"If you stopped
selling hamburgers you wouldn't need any cooks ." Matt,
Beachmont Development,
would also close his firm down if
president of
he was no
longer having fun running it , but spoke definitively that he was
page
121
Will,
building an organization.
president of The Cross Company,
also felt that he was running a business.
He found that the
original intent to "have fun" was impossible without a cohesive
business strategy .
Building an organization is largely dependent on hiring the
right people.
The hiring practices of these entrepreneurial firms
evokes two questions.
First,
are the professional staff being hired
of sufficient quality to warrant trust through delegated authority?
Second,
are the goals and values of the new hire consistent with the
managers,
and,
by corollary,
is the manager representing himself and
the firm correctly when recruiting?
Leana's
in Chapter
(1986)
As discussed
research addressed both questions.
2 of this thesis , she found that "objective measures of
subordinates' competence,
and goal congruence between supervisors
and subordinates influenced the effectiveness of delegation ." (p.
770)
Addressing the first question,
we can compare the competence of
all the third-tier subordinates: Steve , Jerry , Tim,
Tom,
and Alan.
All have been with their firms for one to two years , and are between
25 and 35 years old.
programs,
All but one come from graduate business
and all indicated the desire to learn,
responsibility.
grow,
and accept
Are some more competent than the others,
and does
their competency justify varying levels of trust and delegated
authority?
The homogeneity of this group would indicate that their varying
degrees of delegated authority stems from their supervisor's
inclinations.
Leana finds that the level of delegation is
positively correlated with the supervisor's perception of the
page
125
subordinate,
as well as the supervisor's workload,
the decisions made.
(p.
761)
and importance of
She also found that the supervisors'
need for dominance and their perception of their own role (as a
decision maker versus a trainer of people)
were not correlated to
the level of delegation that they employed .
She concludes further
that "situational constraints rather than personal predispositions
account for any apparent consistency in supervisors' treatments of
their subordinates regarding delegation ." (p .
be reconciled with those developed here?
772)
Can her results
The situational
constraints that she observed in her study included the supervisor's
workload and the importance of the decisions to be made .
These two
constraints were fairly consistent across the four development firms
studied here , so they cannnot account for the different levels of
delegation used by each manager .
All the managers had busy
schedules , and all had the same types of decisions to make about
their projects .
the question.
Then perhaps delegation is not the answer , or even
Leana finds that her own results , developed from a
study of insurance adjusters , are inconsistent with other studies
done on participative decision making.
The bureaucratic and
hierarchical nature of the insurance firms , then , may be causing the
discrepancies with the results of the present research.
The
entrepreneurial development firms' lack of hierarchy and tendency
toward participative,
or in some cases authoritarian,
making help explain the difference.
page
126
decision
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter addresses the questions posed in Chapter
1 of
this thesis.
- Are "textbook" delegation practices used in
entrepreneurial development firms?
The literature addresses delegation for both the professional
manager and for the small business owner.
time management,
Concerns for personal
ability to focus on "big picture" items including
company strategy,
and the professional development of subordinates
apply to all firms .
Most individuals in the subject firms do not
properly delegate.
Reasons identified include a predisposition for
and background in detailed tasks; feelings that the subordinate does
not have enough experience in development to be trusted,
committed
or is not
to the success of the firm; and confusing delegation with
participatory or autonomous decision-making,
or with implementation.
The few cases in the literature where "textbook" delegation is
practiced stem from the principals' actually reading the textbooks.
Significant time was spent researching organizational issues and
developing a management style to achieve the company's objectives.
Some managers do not practice correct delegation techniques,
but think that they do.
The effect of this contradiction on the
work environment depends on whether or not the subordinates share
the manager's interpretation of delegation.
When shared,
subordinates may work effectively and to the satisfaction of their
page
127
When the manager thinks that he is a good delegator and
manager.
the subordinate does not,
Confusion as to
frustration mounts.
levels of authority and responsibility results in the inefficient
duplication of some tasks while others do not get accomplished.
- What influence does the educational or professional
background of the principal have on his use and style of
delegation?
Educational background may have an effect on the individual's
understanding and use of delegation,
but no positive correlation was
found between graduate business management training and strong
The weakest of the four delegators profiled
delegation profiles.
The strongest
had a prestigious business school background.
delegation profile was between a non-business-schooled manager and
his business -schooled
The influence of the firm's
subordinate.
owner , with a strong business school orientation , influenced this
relationship,
however.
Thus,
no positive connection can be
described between management training and strong delegation.
coupled with professional experience,
however,
When
stronger correlations
can be detected.
The weakest delegator (Will,
in business management,
in a bureaucratic,
at Cross) , was formally schooled
and had worked a significant number of years
divisionalized development firm.
He had grown
accustomed to hierarchy and delegation of responsibility without
authority .
The other business-schooled owner
(Matt , at Beachmont)
had no previous real estate experience and chose the field after
analyzing business opportunities for income potential.
page
128
His approach
to management is strictly goal-driven , with growth decisions and
actions effected to meet business plan goals.
Delegation of
authority is seen to be required to reach those goals .
Individuals working solo for many years (Curt,
a hard time managing others and letting go of details,
may change with time.
Rudy,
at Anthem)
have
although this
at Diamond demonstrated how to build
confidence in a subordinate through on-the-job testing that does not
subject the firm to risk of failure.
- Does the existence of a well-defined business plan
encourage the use of delegation?
One can conclude from the research of this thesis that
formalization of company goals helps the delegation process.
The
consistency of approach at Beachmont was so strong that it
almost
supports the contention by itself .
Individuals at all three
hierarchical levels understood the need to delegate authority,
and
examples and discussion of such delegation was prevalent .
Delegation was seen as a means to achieve clearly defined business
goals .
Conversely , the discrepancies of opinion between the manager
and subordinate about the manager's ability to delegate were
frequent in two firms.
objectives.
Neither of them had defined business
The young company
(Cross)
that drastically changed its
business strategy had not formalized its new objectives; the need to
delegate was not clear to them.
At Anthem,
the discrepancies may
stem from the president's belief that he is accomplishing the
company's goals.
Meanwhile,
his subordinate may be targeting other
page
129
goals for himself and the company,
and therefore rates the president
differently based on his own criteria.
- Does the growth strategy of the company influence the use
of delegation?
Consciously or not,
growth strategy .
strategy.
true.
managers are behaving consistent with their
Perhaps the management
style begat the growth
In the firms where business plans did not exist,
this was
Growth in both staff size and in the volume and size of
projects undertaken was seen as limited.
They were limited to the
point where hands-on control over project details became impossible.
The misinterpretation of what constitutes delegation is also related
to growth plans .
larger
One-project firms did not delegate .
Slightly
firms understood delegation of responsibility or authority ,
but not both .
The most growth-oriented firm preferred the concept
of teamwork to that of delegation.
In the firms having strategic
plans for growth , managers proved flexible enough to adopt the new
duties of delegation.
- Can a firm's success be correlated with it's use of
delegation?
It
does not appear that a firm's financial success depends on
the owner's ability to delegate.
Firms are able to achieve success
at their own volume level,
as indicated before,
which,
dependent on their management style.
may be
A hands-on developer can
generate substantial profits for his firm by working hard and paying
strict attention to detail.
The quality of the product can be
page
130
guaranteed,
however,
and the reputation of the firm upheld.
There is doubt,
whether this success might succeed the owner if
the company
choose to grow its operations after the owner retires.
- Does the principal consider the professional development
of his subordinates in his use of delegation,
and if so is
this reflected in his daily work practices?
Managers are split in their desire to develop their
subordinates' skills.
Those viewing the company as a management
firm for a portfolio of investments chose to develop in-house skills
only to the extent required to properly manage the assets .
Professional growth was seen as a sideline.
Principals with loftier
goals seek to develop business acumen in select professionals who
could help them expand the company's range of activities.
But even
those managers who specifically encourage skill enhancement may be
acting counterproductively through the improper use of delegation.
After having implemented the details of a task that he had been
"delegated",
a subordinate may become dependent on his manager for
authority to act.
- What effect do the perceptions of the supervisor's use of
delegation by the staff have on their own performance?
After a year of employment,
styles of their managers.
subordinates generally know the
Subordinates' perceptions are viewed as
critical to their job satisfaction.
No negative impact on the
quality of work by unsatisfied employees was detected,
productivity of the firm may suffer due to overlapping
page
131
although the
responsibilities.
Where supervisors and subordinates agree on the
occurrence of bad "textbook" delegation practices, these practices
Rather,
are not seen to negatively affect the subordinate.
difficulties are encountered where the manager considers himself a
better delegator than the subordinate perceives him to be.
Recommendations
for Growing Firms
Fledgling real estate development firms are classic
entrepreneurial endeavors.
The ability to create and control
enormous assets with a small labor force attracts the risk-seeking
individual: the entrepreneur.
first
As soon as the entrepreneur hires his
he becomes a
employee, his own role changes significantly --
manager.
All managers, from the owner on down, have heard how the
use of delegation is supposed to benefit the firm.
However, the
detailed nature of the development business prevents all but the
most disciplined manager from properly delegating authority to his
subordinates.
Discipline means striving for predetermined goals
when choices over time and resources must be made.
When the
manager's time is sparse, goals which set ambitious growth
strategies for the firm can be achieved only by utilizing the
talents of his staff.
This can be accomplished two ways.
Hierarchical relationships are necessary for delegation to occur.
In firms where these relationships do not exist, the synergy of
teamwork can replace (and possibly exceed) the benefits of
delegation.
Entrepreneurship is much easier to maintain at a small
development firm than at a large one.
With fewer assets at risk and
page 132
no bureaucracy to stifle decision-making, the owner can be creative,
flexible, and innovative --
and challenged in the process.
The
small firms tend to be either authoritarian or team-oriented, but do
not use delegation in their daily business affairs.
With the
owner's constant attention to detail, business success is possible.
And with success comes opportunities for growth.
These firms can
implement delegation to facilitate growth, but in doing so create
management hierarchies.
The development "team" can remain intact,
but will be delegated tasks by higher levels of management in the
new, larger organization.
The challenge to remain entrepreneurial becomes enormous.
The
owner can do so by either leaving the company to start a new
venture, or by developing new lines of business within the real
estate organization.
The challenge for the company is to remain
entrepreneurial by developing bold and innovative managers to
succeed the owner.
Hero," Reich (1987)
In "Entrepreneurship Reconsidered: The Team as
decanonizes the "entrepreneurial hero" in favor
of "collective entrepreneurship":
sole
the
isn't
CEIntrepreneurship
top
its
or
founder
of the company's
province
and
capability
a
is
it
Rather,
managers.
the
throughout
diffused
is
that
attitude
to
adapt
to
ability
company's
The
company....
depends
them
on
capitalize
and
opportunities
new
on its capacity to share information and involve
systemwide
a
in
organization
in the
everyone
search for ways to improve, adjust, adapt, and
81)
(p.
upgrade.
The next generation of talent and ambition exists in many
development firms.
The entrepreneurial owner can continue his
hands-on style and lead his firm to success.
Or he can recognize
the talent that he has hired, and inspire them to carry on the
page 133
entrepreneurial
spirit that he first instilled.
Proper use of
delegation is one way to inspire and challenge that talent.
page 131
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brill,
"Delegation: It's Harder than it Looks ,"
E.
A.
30 (February
Journal of Systems Management, Vol.
36-7.
pp.
1979),
Risk, Uncertainty and
Byrne , Peter and Cadman, David.
Decision-making in Property Development, London: E.
N. Spon, 1985.
"How to Delegate
Caruth , Don and Bill Middlebrook .
Successfully ," Supervisory Management, Vol.
36-12.
1983), pp.
& F.
28 (February
"The Five Stages
Churchill, Neil C. and Virginia L. Lewis.
of Small Business Growth ," In "Growing Concerns ," Edited
61,
Harvard Business Review, Vol.
Gumpert.
by David E.
3
No.
(May-June
1983),
30-11+.
pp.
"Effects of Delegated
Cosier , Ricard A. and John C. Aplin.
33
Choice on Performance ," Personnel Psychology, Vol.
581-593.
(Autumn 1980), pp.
"Learning the Craft of Organizational
Daft , Richar L.
Research," Acadamy of Management Review, Vol.
539-515.
pp.
(1983),
Day,
Dave.
Vol.
Drake,
No.
8,
"Effective Delegation ," Personnel Journal,
916-919.
62 (November 1983), pp.
John D . A CEO's Guide to Interpersonal Relations,
New York: The Presidents
77.
Special Study No .
Association, 1982.
"Drucker on Delegation: Not as Easy as it Seems ,"
73 (July 1981) , p.
Management Review, Vol.
1.
"Confessions of a So-so Controller ,"
duToit, Derek F.
I (July-August
63, No.
Harvard Business Review, Vol.
50-55.
1985), pp.
"Letting Go ," Harvard Business
Firnstahl, Timothy W.
5 (September -October 1986),
61, No.
Review, Vol.
14-18.
Ford,
pp.
"Delegation Without Fear ," Supervisory
Robert.
2-8.
28 (July 1983), pp.
Management, Vol.
Gardner,
Neely D.
Delegating,
and Davis,
Garden City,
John N.
NY:
The Art of
Doubleday & Company,
1965.
page
135
Inc.
q
"How to Stay on Top of the Job ,"
Harrison , James C. Jr.
39 (November-December
Harvard Business Review, Vol .
1961),
pp.
100-108.
"Delegation: There's More to it than
Haynes , Marion El.
Letting Someone Else Do It! ," Supervisory Management ,
9-15.
25 (January 1980), pp.
Vol.
"Why
T. and Al-Jafary, Abdul Rahman A.
Hollingsworth, A.
Supervisors Don't Delegate and Employees Won't Accept
28 (April
Responsibility ," Supervisory Management, Vol.
12-17.
1983), pp.
"What Works for Me",
Horton, Thomas R.
House Business Division, 1986.
Huffmire, Donald W.
Busines s , Vol.
Kaplan,
Roger .
New York: Random
"Learning to Share the Load ," Nation's
30+.
72 (September 1981), pp.
"Entrepreneurship Reconsidered:
The
Antimanagement Bias ," Harvard Business Review,
84-89.
3 (May-June 1987), pp.
No.
65,
Vol.
Kelly,
"Delegation: Key to Management Success,"
?.
29-30.
39 (Spring 1986), pp.
Management, Vol.
Kozoll,
"Delegation, Instruction and First-time
Charles El.
15 (October 1983),
Understanding," Supervision, Vol.
8-10.
pp.
"Predictors and Consequences of
Carrie R.
Delegation ," Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
754-77,.
pp.
- (1986),
No.
Leana,
20,
"Ten Reasons Why Managers Need to Know
Maidment, Robert.
29
More About Delegation ," Supervisory Management , Vol.
(August
1981),
pp.
8-11.
"Run Your Business or Build an
Matthews, Glenn H.
Organization? ," In "Growing Concerns ," Edited by David E.
2
62, No.
Harvard Business Review, Vol.
Gumpert.
31-39+.
pp.
1981),
(March-April
McConkey, Dale D. No-Nonsense Delegation, New York: AMACOM,
A Division of American Management Associations, 197-1.
"Control, Contingency and Delegation in
Michael , Stephen R.
Decision -Making ," Training and Development Journal, Vol.
36-12.
33 (February 1979), pp.
"Donald Trump: What's
Norman, James R. and Frons, Marc.
Behind the Hype?," Business Week, July 20, 1987, pp.
92-99.
page
136
Olsen,
"Enterprise Does Not Preclude Integrity ,"
Kenneth H.
7.
31, No.
35 (June 3, 1987), p.
Tech Talk, Vol.
"Management Time:
Oncken, William Jr. and Donald L. Wass.
Who's Got the Monkey?," Harvard Business Review, Vol.
75-80.
6 (November-December 1971), pp.
52, No.
Perrow , Charles . "The Bureaucratic Paradox: the Efficient
Organization Centralizes in Order to Decentralize ,"
5 (Spring 1977) , pp.
Organizational Dynamics, Vol.
3-11 .
"The Short and Glorious History of
Perrow , Charles.
Organizational Theory ," Organizational Dynamics,
Summer 1973, pp. 3-15.
Pyhrr, Stephen A. and Cooper, James R. Real Estate
Investment: Strategy, Analysis, Decisions, Boston:
1982.
Warren, Gorham & Lamont,
Ramsden, Pamela.
Top Team Planning,
& Sons , 1973.
Reich,
New York: John Wiley
"Entrepreneurship Reconsidered: The Team as
Robert B.
Hero ," Harvard Business Review, Vol.
65, No.
3
77-83.
(May-June 1987), pp.
Rimler , George W . and Humphreys , Neil J . Small Business:
Developing the Winning Management T eam, New York: AMACOM,
A Division of American Management
Associations , 1980.
"Ineffective Delegation -- Symptom or
Savary , Suzanne.
30 (June
Problem? ," Supervisory Management, Vol .
27-11.
pp .
1985) ,
Scanlan, Burt K . "Managerial Leadership in Perspective :
58
Getting Back to Basics ," Personnel Journal , Vol .
168-183.
(March 1979), pp.
Sheppard,
Vol.
1.
T.
"The Art of Delegation ," Management World,
26-29.
13 (March 1981), pp.
"PBS Film Explores Founders Letting Go ,"
Solomon, Stephen D.
17.
8 (October 1986), p.
Inc., Vol.
Gumpert.
"The Heart of
Howard H. and David E.
61 , No.
Entrepreneurship ," Harvard Business Review, Vol.
85-91.
2 (March-April 1985), pp.
Stevenson,
Taylor, Harold L.
92 (August
"Delegation ," Canadian Banker,
51-52.
1985), pp.
"The Best Delegator in America? ," Inc. , Vol.
96 .
1985) , p .
page
137
Vol.
7 (January
Valentine,
Raymond F.
Initiative and Managerial
Power,
New
York: AMACOM, A Division of American Management
Associations, 1973.
Wrapp,
H. Edward.
"Good Managers Don't Make Policy
Decisions ," Harvard Business Review, Vol.
61, No.
(July-August 198,1), pp.
'1-11 .
page
138
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Survey Questionnaires
A 1 - "Specific Delegated and Non -Delegated
Tasks"
A2 - "Are You and Effective Delegator?"
A3 - "Possible Reasons for Minimal Delegation"
Al
- "Thought -Provoking Quotations"
page
139
APPENDIX Al
SPECIFIC DELEGATED AND NON-DELEGATED TASKS
SUPERIOR
Specific Delegated Task
Describe a recent incident in which you substantially
task to
delegated a significant
Why did you delegate it?
?
Why did you delegate it to
Did you enlist the subordinate's help in shaping the job?
What type of
instruction did you give?
What type of
monitoring or auditing did You
How much critique/feedback
use?
did you provide?
What were your prime concerns about delegating it?
What
was the outcome of the task?
How satisfied
standards?
were you?
Were the results up to your
How would you rate the overall
competence of
_?
Specific Non-Delegated Task
Describe a recent incident in which You consciously decided
task.
not to delegate a significant
Why didn't
you delegate it?
How did the task turn out?
In retrospect, could the task have been delegated?
What was the cost of doing the task yourself?
General
Ouestions
Were you responsible for the hiring of this person of his/her
promotion into this position?
Was your delegation of the task typical
a rare occurrence?
it
Was there a point in
of
your career that you
Jacobson survey on delegation
page
110
your
style,
changed your
or was
attitude towards and style of delegation?
point.
Describe that
Are you running a business or building an organization?
you intend to expand the business?
Do
SUBORDINATE
Specific
Delegated Task
Describe a recent incident in which You were substantially
delegated a significant task by
Why were you delegated
Why was
it delegated to you?
the
enlist
Did
What
it?
type of
What type of
your help
in
shaping the
job?
instruction were you given?
monitoring or auditing was used?
How much critique/feedback was provided to you?
Specific Non-Delegated
Task
should delegate more work to you?
Do you feel
responsible for
Was
your
hiring
or
your promotion
into this position?
(Middle
Manager)
own management
What
has
influence
had
style and attitude towards delegation?
Jacobson survey on delegation
page
1 A1
on
your
APPENDIX A2
ARE YOU AN EFFECTIVE DELEGATOR?
Yes
No
Answer
I tell my subordinates what I want in
terms so vague that they cannot pinpoint
precisely what I want.
----
----
No
I have trained employees to plan ahead,
and sudden, unexpected emergencies are
rare in my opinion.
----
----
Yes
----
----
No
----
----
No
----
----
No
----
----
Yes
already answered it.
----
----
No
I make an obvious effort to contain my
impatience if he does not understand.
----
----
No
I hold frequent staff meetings?
----
----
No
10. When I am not present, my group continues
Work doesn't
to function efficiently.
come to a stop until I return.
----
----
Yes
----
----
Yes
----
----
Yes
----
----
No
1.
2.
3.I give an audible sigh of resignation or
a subordinate asks me to
act shocked if
clarify some point.
4.
Is my department plagued
by
slow
decision-making?
5.
Are needed decisions postponed when
away?
I am
6. Do I permit my people to select their own
means to agreed-upon ends?
7.
If
a subordinate asks the same question
more
B.
9.
11.
Do
than
once.,
I
point
out
that
I
have
On
My employees are self-starters.
familiar jobs, they don't wait for orders
However, if an assignment is
to go ahead.
new or complicated, they are careful to be
checked out properly before they start
wor k .
12. Employees frequently give me good
suggestions for operational improvements.
13..
14.
petty,
I criticize
subordinates.
specific errors make by
I do not explain the purpose of the
page
142
expected result of
subordinates.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
the Job to
----
----
No
----
----
Yes
I change instructions often to
subordinates.
----
----
No
I assign subordinate jobs below their
ability and training.
----
----
No
I assign subordinates jobs above their
and training.
ability
----
----
No
Do I really know the strengths and
weaknesses of my people?7
----
----
Yes
I base my judgments on this?
----
----
Yes
----
----
No
Is people development a major concern as
delegate?
20. Do
I
21.
I give subordinates unrealistic deadlines.
22.
I improve on everything subordinates do.
23.
Do I
No
----
----
Y es
24. Have I skipped any vacations in the last
five years?
----
----
No
25. Do I work longer hours than those
reporting to me?
----
----
No
26. Do I measure success primarily by time
worked rather than accomplishments?
----
----
No
My advance planning relieves the pressure
of the daily job and gives me time to
think out future assignments.
----
----
Yes
I make subordinates do each job my way.
----
----
No
29. Do my people request advice once or twice
a day?
----
----
No
30. Do their questions to me involve details
rather than policies?
----
----
No
Simple jobs that are part of the regular
routine are delegated and promptly done.
follow-up is required.
Little
----
----
Yes
----
----
No
27.
28.
31.
reward based on results?
32. Do my people hesitate to make
recommendations to me?
page
1.13
33.
descriptions for my people of the
type?
----
----
No
Do I often ask employees for advice and
then fail to provide any explanantion for
ignoring it?
----
----
No
Do my people accomplish less than 75% of
their objectives?
----
----
No
36. Do I overrule my people regularly?
----
----
No
I have
37. Details are not my headache.
employees who are capable of handling
them.
----
----
Yes
38. There is little friction or discontent in
We work together smoothly
my work team.
and cooperatively.
----
----
Yes
----
----
No
----
----
No
----
----
Yes
----
----
Yes
----
----
Yes
----
----
Yes
----
----
Yes
----
----
No
----
----
No
----
----
Yes
----
----
No
Do I consult with them prior to setting my
own objectives?
----
----
Yes
my subordinates
to let
Would I be willing
answer the same questions for me?
----
----
Yes
34.
35.
Are job
activity
work frequently?
39.
Do
I check on their
40.
Do
I
41.
Do my people know specifically
they must achieve?
evaluate on "personal ity "?
the results
42. Has their authority been clearly defined?
in writing?
43.
Is it
44.
Did my people recommend it
45.
I never pass the buck for my own mistakes
when
responsibility
but accept full
to go as I have planned.
operations fail
to me?
46.
Do
I usually work at home?
47.
Am
I
48.
Do they have a major voice in
their roles?
49.
50.
51.
52.
usually behind in
my work?
determining
Do I frequently do a job myself because
quicker, better, and cheaper?
can do it
If
I
were a subordinate,
would
page
111
I
I
be happy
----
working for myself?
----
Yes
Derived from:
Rimler, George W. and Humphreys, Neil J. Small Business:
A Division o
Team. New York: AMACOM,
Developinq the Winning
171-3.
American Management Associations, 1980, pp.
"Ten Reasons Why Managers Need to K:now More
Maidment, Robert.
About Delegation, " Supervisory Management, August 1984, p.
page
115
APPENDIX A3
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR MINIMAL DELEGATION
very accurate
32
1
inaccurate
4
5
WHY SUPERVISOR'S DON'T DELEGATE
1. Feeling of job
insecurity
2. He/she (h/s) believes that only
h/s is capable of doing the job.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
fearful
H/s is
being made.
of
costly
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
mistakes
H/s is unable to communicate what
needs to be done due to lack of
information.
H/s is confused about proper
and correct
of authority
accountability.
4
1
lines
1
control of feedback
that
H/s feels
too weak to correct
are
mechanisms
happen.
they
as
mistakes
1
than
firefight
H/s would rather
set up systems that enable them to
manage.
1
H/s feels that they can do the
work faster.
1
shouldn't delegate
h/s
H/s feels
anything that h/s wouldn't or
couldn't do themself.
1
2
3
4
5
4
2
2
3
4
5
3
4
5
2
4
5
WHY SUBORDINATES RESIST DELEGATION
1. It's easier to let the supervisor
decisions.
make the
2.
3.
4.
1
H/s is not sure of h/s own level
of authority or even who h/s
supervisor is.
1
2
3
4
5
H/s doublechecks every decision
with the supervisor before
implementing it.
1
2
3
4
5
received the
hasn't
h/s
H/s feels
proper information to handle the
page
1,46
5.
6.
wor k.
1
4
5
H/s is not prepared to accept
responsibility.
1
4
5
H/s is not convinced h/s can gain
anything by accepting
responsibility.
1
2
3
4
Derived from:
"Why
T. and Al-Jafary, Abdul Rahman A.
Hollingsworth, A.
Accept
Won't
Supervisors Don't Delegate and Employees
Responsibility, " Supervisory Management, April
13-17.
1983,1' pp.
page
117
APPENDIX Al
THOUGHT-PROVOKING
QUOTATIONS
1. "The business owner who doesn't delegate effectively is
essentially a prisoner -- as soon as he or she steps away, the
business crumbles. The owner who entrusts authority to others
creates opportunities to expand the business materially or to
start new ventures."
- Matthews, Glenn H. "Run Your Business or Build an
Organization?," In "Growing Concerns," Edited by David E.
Gumpert. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 62, No. 2
(March-April 1981), p. 31.
2. A successful entrepreneur encountered four problems in trying to
"and most obvious problem was watching
delegate. The first
someone mess up a task I could do easily in half the time." The
remaining three were: shifting from the role of specialist to
that of generalist, thereby "surrendering the greatest pleasures
of my professional life"; restraining his competitiveness by
teaching and letting others become the experts; and learning the
new, uncomfortable job and art of leadership.
- Firnstahl, Timothy W. "Letting Go," Harvard
61, No. 5 (September-October
Business Review, Vol.
1986), p. 11.
3. "The successful executive ... asks himself the following: What
compromise, if any, must I make between the optimum style of
delegation and other effective methods because of limits of time,
effort, or money?
Or, in other words, how important is it to do
this job perfectly?"
- Harrison, James C. Jr. "How to Stay on Top of the
Job," Harvard Business Review, Vol.
39
(November-December 1961), p. 106.
page 148